i've got numerous articles, things that have been taken out to talk about today. one is a news segment here about secretary napolitano appointing a deradicalization, that's in quotes, expert, to the homeland security advisory council. now, originally he was made by homeland security a member of the countering violent extremism. it's a little strange. violent extremism and oh, yeah, you then realize that this administration does not want to use the terms radical islam

about the people who are radical islamists. and when you get to digging a little deeper, you find out that the o.i.c., islamic group, figured out that we need to go on the attack and start calling anybody who mentions radical islam as an islamaphobe. and if you give universities, great universities, proud heritage in this country, massive amounts of money, you can also get them to teach seminars on this. you can get them to teach courses on this. and you can paint the picture that anybody, no matter how open-minded, no matter how well red and studied theyr you call

them islamapho bmp es and maybe it will catch on and call radical islamists what they are. i don't know anybody that was in judiciary today that believes that muslims are terrorists. they're not. the only disagreement among those i know concerned about radical islam is whether the radical islamists, 1%, 5%, maybe a little more, some might say as much as 10%, but at least 90%, maybe 99% of muslim are peace-loving people. and if you have a muslim friend, they are your true friend. and people have experienced that and they have seen that. but those who study radical

islam also come to know that it's very difficult for a moderate, peace-loving muslim to speak up against radicals because under some of the con torted thinking by people like muhammad that planned september 11, they are muslim in name only. they think that means they're ok to be killed because they don't really believe in true islam. when you get down to it, it appears from a study that looked at the issue, when you don't worry about what the o.i.c., muslim brotherhood may try to paint you as or the mainstream

media, and they would be the first ones to be killed if radical is lamb takes over our country, don't realize how ignorant they are being. but, if they were to take over, any area they take over, as they did in afghanistan, the moderate, peace-loving muslims are the first ones to be killed because they don't see them as true muslims. but documents have been discovered, going backwards to the 1993 meeting in philadelphia of those who would be part of the muslim brotherhood, other groups kind of plot a strategy for the years ahead, they believed a number of things that

-- we're now seeing carried out. you intimidate people and make them think they are much more elite if they say, well, gee, we're not going to even say the name of radical islam. in fact as speaker pelosi led in the last congress the 2006 military tribunal bill was changed -- the law was changed so we didn't call hem enmip combatants and changed the name from enemy combatants to unprivileged alien enemy beligerants and would hope the word enemy would not offend them but like mr. perl, they would take a jagged knife and cut your head off. they don't do it in the name of

scientology or the southern baptist convention and if they did, i would be calling them out for doing so. they do it in the name of a perverted name that they believe is islam but it is radicalized jihadist islam. so, here's an article, october 21, 2010, secretary napolitano appoints islammist to the homeland security panel. he had been appointed to her countering violent extremism working group and apparently it impressed somebody to appoint a year ago october 21, 2010,

secretary napolitano swore him in as being part of the homeland security advisory council. as we found out today from secretary napolitano, he was also given a secret security clearance. we have also seen from other articles we have talked about here before that the white house and as we found out today homeland security has implicit trust of the president of the islamic society of north america, even though isna was a named co-conspirator in funding terrorism. now, named co-con spiritor in the trial.

prosecutors' thoughts were that the bush administration, those i talked to, intended to do everything they could to get convictions because they saw, they had the documentation that these groups were doing some charity work and actually doing some, but then sending money, really, the basis of the group, send money to hamas to fund terrorism. and that's what they are convicted of. 105 counts, as i recall. there was a move by care, some -- not defendants, but named co-con spiritors to have their name struck by the pleadings so they weren't named. but both the judge at the trial court and fifth circuit court of appeals found there was sufficient evidence to show they

were co-conspiritors and they weren't going to have their names removed. the evidence was there. in fact, got some of it here. now, there were boxes and boxes and boxes of documents that have these kinds of checks and ledgers and deposit things like that that make a clear case that these groups ended up providing money that funded trim. but this department of justice, headed by attorney general holder, decided not to name the others and let the case drop. and not only did they not pursue them, they ended up actually we have the president of is nmp a, who we find -- isna who we find

on the comments in the white house web site, actually led the iftar prayers a year ago at the white house and have a nice relationship from what the deputy national security adviser said with the national security administration, national security adviser and the president. we found out from one article that all it took was with two individuals who were going to participate in training law enforcement at one of our intelligence services, all it took was care reporting, calling the white house, reporting to the white house that people were going to say bad things about radical islam and that people who wanted to kill us were radical islammists and explain

how you could look for people who were radicalized, look tore tell-tale signs, the white house intervened and we know the conference was canceled immediately before the conference was to start. and we have an article indicating that actually now they are rewriting the rules so if you are a government employee, you will not be able to do briefings on the threats of radical islam and also they will not pay for outside contractors who spent their adult lives studying the issue, so it will be left to volunteers, like those from the muslim brotherhood who will brief our intelligence, state department, justice department and the white house on issues to do with violent extremism. and then we find out more about this person -- i'm told he is a

nice gentleman, that he has done a lot of nice things, but you don't have to look very far. you find out, he was one of the featured speakers for the tribute -- in fact, there's a flyer, tribute to the great islamic visionary cue mainy, who has brought hate, war and torture into the modern age than most anybody in the last 40 years. and he's a named presenter in the great islamic visionary. also, he has written articles. he got after the administration for prosecution of the whollyland foundation and thought the trial was unjust, unfair and not called for and

speaks glowingly of the muslim who was executed in egypt in the 1960's after being convicted of having founded to conspire the -- to kill the leader of egypt. he is held in highest team not only as a basis -- also for muhammad. we have an article he wrote about the verdict misrepresenting this situation with the wholly land foundation. we have an article from "the dallas morning news" and they cite so many of these things that seem to indicate we should be careful about giving him

access to secrets. but he has been given by homeland security group secret clarence. an interesting article from may of 2007, the o.i.c., organization of islamic conference, has said and reported in 2007, their words, that islama phobia is the worst form of terrorism and that means it is worst than flying commercial airliners into high-rise towers and worst than launching civilian attacks in order to score propoganda points, yeah, worse than that is to be an islamaphobe and aclu is joining hands -- and we found

out that he is working with the aclu and has a secrete security clearance to try to get documentation that will ultimately, if he gets it -- and this administration may just do this -- it will revessel sources and methods of how we are dealing with radical islam or violent extremism and working with these guys. but the aclu and islamists are trying to destroy the ability to actually fight those who want to destroy our country. . . interesting article. he points out that the antiterrorist trainers were blocked and according to people close to the conference, the event was ordered postponed after muslim advocacy groups

contacted the department of homeland security and the white house, including scheduled speakers, both specialists on the islamic terrorist threat, joint staff analyst is one of the most knowledgeable counterterrorism experts specializing in relationship between islamic law and terrorism. mr. emerson, head of the investigative project on terrorism, is the leading expert on the islamic violent extremism financing and operations. but, anyway, looks like they're rewriting those rules so people like that, since they're not muslim brotherhood, will not be able to instruct law enforcement on the threat that radical islam creates for the country. and then we find that an article here -- holder firmly committed to eliminating antimuslim training -- any muslim training but just so people understand, and i close with this, i

understand that the vast majority of muslims are dear, wonderful people. peace-loving people. but the radical islamists like khalid sheik muhammad and the other four at guantanamo bay who said they wanted to to plead guilty in december of 2008, the judge was going to accept it until this justice department rushed in and said, no, no, we'll give you a show trial in new york city and through a bufpblg -- threw a bunch of gum in the works so now there's still been no trial, there's still been no justice and in his own writing he says, in quotes from the koran, we fight you with almighty god, so if our act of jihad and our fighting with you cause fear and terror, then many thanks to god because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts which resulted in your infidelity, pag anism and your statement that god had a son and your trinity beliefs. then he quotes from the koran, soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers for

that they join companies with allah for which he has sent no authority. the place will be fire and evil is the home of wrongdoctors. people like khalid sheik muhammad are radical islamists. and we need to recognize it. so that we can perpetuate the freedom that we've had for 200-more years. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to make a motion? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, at this time i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.

repeals a requirement that the federal government withhold 3% of payments to contractors, and the other, a bill that requires social security benefits to be included when calculating eligibility predicate and subsequent health insurance. we expect both measures tomorrow. live coverage of the house continues when members gavel back again on thursday here on c-span. >> tonight on c-span, a house hearing investigate iran pose a covert operations and the alleged plot to kill a saudi diplomat in washington. president obama announced proposals to ease the repayment of loans, and house debate over a land swap to prevent the copper mine in arizona on federal land. >> janet nepalitano traveled to

appear before a house judiciary committee today. she took several questions on border issues. here is a look at one of them from texas republican ted coe. >> an estimated 40% of the border is not secure. 56% is secure. do you agree with that statistic? >> no, they were using the phrase operational control, which is a term of art within border control. it is somewhat misleading because it does not capture the technology and infrastructure that goes along with border security. >> it is not an accurate statement? >> it is not. >> who controls the other 56% if

we do not have operational control? >> no, we have the responsibility for the entire border, as you know. it includes manpower, technology, and infrastructure we have put down at the border. it is a very different order than it was even three or four years ago. >> i agree. it is worse. >> you can see all of this hearing tonight at 9:40 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and is available to watch any time on line at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> last week, the justice department indicted two irani nationals on charges of planning the assassination of the saudi ambassador to the u.s.. two subcommittees' looked into the allegations and other covert operations. retired general jack keene is partly responsible for developing the iraq surged

strategy in the bush administration is testifying. also testifying, the commander in beirut during the 1983 attack killed 241 u.s. marines. this is two hours, 45 minutes. >> be writing government is a threat -- a recent reports indicate that the iran in government is a threat to the house -- to a homeland security by attempting to assassinate the saudi ambassador, operating on our doorstep. enough is enough. in the past, we in the international committee have attempted to use economic sanctions. it is obvious these sanctions have not worked.

the message should be simple, continue threatening the security of the u.s. and there will be a punitive response. are hearing today examines threats from the iranian government, the timid u.s. response, and subsequent courses of action. iranian leaders seem very determined to build a nuclear weapon. additionally, iran has been successfully and enriched uranium. their growing arsenal of ballistic missiles enhances the power of their production and there are rumors that they will use these missiles to develop a warhead. iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. since its inception in 1979, the islamic state has used terror as an integral part in its foreign and military policies. it provides funding, weapons,

training, and a sanctuary to numerous terrorist troops, most notably those operating in iraq, afghanistan, lebanon, and other middle eastern countries. iranian terrorists have killed over 1000 people in terrorist attacks, including the 1982 suicide bombing, killing 299 people. that was in beirut. most recently, files -- charges have been filed against a naturalized u.s. citizen who will an iranian passport, and another who was identified as a member of the quds force, a special unit of the iran revolutionary guard. the charges of statstate that m. monsoor, attempted to hire the

mexican drug cartel to assassinate the saudi ambassador in washington d.c. we should be concerned. the spots indicate a dangerous amount -- of this plot indicates a dangerous escalation. remember, world war i started because of the assassination of an iranian diplomat -- of a foreign diplomat. iran is focus on recruiting venezuelan youths of arab origin. some are brought for training. sources claim that hezbollah is involved in the operation. in addition, intelligence officials have been

transporting -- obviously, iran is a rogue state, which continues to acquire nuclear weapons, build and long-range missiles in support of terrorism. actions taken by the administration are not working. would not enforce sanctions against iran's central bank. if it turns out that this iranian plot on u.s. soil was tension at the highest levels of the iranian government, then i believe force should not be taken off the table. and we have a distinguished panel here with us today. i looked forward to seeing what actions the obama administration will take to demonstrate that

the iranian government actions are simply unacceptable. with that, i now recognize the ranking member, the gentle lady from california, ms. jackie spear. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. the first, i would like to congratulate the people of libya for ending the reign of muammar gaddafi last week. it is now time for the people to begin a long process of rebuilding their country and to regain the villa's standing in the international community. i would also like to congratulate president obama for helping to support the coalition in deposing this dictator all without placing in the of our forces in harm's way. it stands as yet another example

that our increasingly interconnected world, berber regimes cannot -- berchtold regimes cannot suppress the desire for freedom and democracy. habré like to thank you for being here today to discuss the iranian threat -- i would like to thank you for being here today to discuss the iranian threat. though this plot has refocus the debate on threats to our security from iran, we all know that iran has been a primary security concern for america for a long time. earlier this year we had a subcommittee hearing on hezbollah. this is a group responsible for devastating attacks against the u.s., including a deadly bombing of a u.s. embassy and marine

corps barracks in lebanon. iraq continues to -- iran continues to supply support for terrorism in iraq and afghanistan. the recently foiled plot, which was allegedly authorized, funded, and planned by members of the could force the -- of the quds force opens up issues. if this plot was authorized by members of the iranian government, what does it mean for the overall threat we face from iran? given that the target was not american, how does this change our estimation of the iranian capability and intent to strike the air -- the u.s.? and does the attempt to partner with in the met -- with a drug cartel member, indicate an

allusion with iran and the drug cartel organization? we still need to learn of a troubling facts in this case. but one thing is for sure, we'd sober foreign policy discussion, not the inflammatory sound bites that have been characteristic of the debate to -- until now. a heated debate brings back memories of the darkest days of the cold war. before this plot was uncovered, the u.s. and iran had been considering a hot line between the two countries in of sackur heads will prevail in the event of a crisis. -- in the hopes that cooler heads will prevail in the event of a crisis. i cannot help but think that such a hot line could have helped before now. america needs to send a message that iran's leaders must be held

for their actions, but wind must not take any reckless actions, which may lead to opening up another front in the war on terror, which the american people do not want and cannot afford. we need the proper balance in making iran accountable. as we showed in libya, the best approach is to build a coalition and avoid unilateral action. many people have criticized our sanctions on iran for lacking teeth. just last week it was reported that their nuclear program was doing poorly. even china has recently slowed oil and energy investment in iran to be more compliant with the sanctions program, greatly and during the iranian -- greatly angering the iranians.

i hope that we can build a strategy in dealing with iran that is effective and responsible. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee on counter-terrorism and intelligence, the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for to our distinguished panel. since the rodney an assassination plot was revealed to the public two weeks ago, i have been struck by much of the commentary in the media that has underplayed the plot, even suggesting that it would be impossible to pull off and questioning how iran would ever use a mexican drug cartels for a terrorist attack on american soil. but i would note, in the september 11 attacks from the 9/11 commission pointedly stated -- and this was their

conclusions across the government, it was imagination, policy, and government -- capabilities and management. we do not believe leaders understand the gravity of the threat to our leaders completely understand the gravity of the threat? that is the essence of what we are trying to ask today. it appears to me that our government risks the failure of imagination. it may not fully be considering the gravity of the iranian threat.

this is a game changer and represent crossing of the red line by iran. for many members of this kiddie- committee is not surprising. witnesses testified that iran, both directly and through it plot -- its proxy, hezbollah, had its tentacles from the entrenched in latin america, venezuela, and into mexico. one witness testified that hezbollah was sharing underground tunnel technology with the drug cartels along the southern border of the u.s., the same technology used by another iran-supported terrorist group, hamas, along the egyptian and/gaza strip border. i think there is a general consensus among any in the intelligence community iran would not attack the united

states, and unless provoked by the u.s., or its -- or an attack by them on israel or their nuclear facilities -- our nuclear facilities. does it now appears that consensus is wrong? the complaint revealed october 11 has ramifications that are significant for a homeland security in the u.s. the focused but since 9/11 has rightly been on al qaeda and other associated terrorist groups. the capability to strike on american soil has been limited to nuclear -- the nuclear issue. that must change. while the united states and the international community has issued sanctions against iran in some form since 1979, it is obvious in the assassination

attempt that iran has not been deterred. some would theorize that it would signal some desperation and dissension within iran, particularly within the relationship between ahmadinejad and the ruling theocracy. what are the implications of that? i do believe, regardless, that is important for the united states to get serious. sanctioned the central bank, the oil operations, shipping business and others. while assassinating a foreign ambassador in washington d.c. is a significant provocation, it is not a plot considered in isolation. iran is on a plot -- a path to obtaining a nuclear weapon. if we cannot deter their actions now, the thought of them with a nuclear weapon is unimaginable. simply taking him at his word,

president ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons to literally wipe israel off the map. we need to do everything we can as a nation to stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, ensuring both the united states andboth united states' israeli security. the united states must do everything in its power to protect the state of israel from an iranian attack. let me close my comments by saying i would like to call special attention to one of these witnesses, and retired marine, -- retired marine colonel, tim garrity. he was in beirut, lebanon in 1983 when a hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 servicemen. as we all know, this attack was

planned, finance, and ordered by the iranian government. this past sunday was the 20th anniversary of the attacks. i know i speak for all of congress when i say that we have never forgotten their sacrifice. and on this past sunday there was a remembrance ceremony at arlington national 7-cemetery -- arlington national cemetery where many of the tim kyrgy aregerrity's today. it tells an important story about the type of enemy iran poses to the u.s. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member, the subcommittee

on oversight, the gentleman from this -- from massachusetts, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to of knowledge chairman meehan and ranking member spear. i am pleased that we have joined together to break -- gain a greater insight on the iranian threat. for over 30 years, the relationship between iran and the united states has been tenuous at best. since 1995, the u.s. has had an embargo with iran. this may seem like a long time, posted in the red sox -- post dating the red sox aversion to the playoffs. as i watched our young men and women returned from the battlefield in iraq and

afghanistan, bearing both the physical and psychological wounds of war, what angers me the most is the allegations of their extensive collaboration -- of the extensive collaboration between iran and some of our enemies like the taliban and al qaeda themselves. for this reason, this should not be a partisan issue. as we focus on their nuclear ambitions, which are incredibly concerning, we cannot turn a blind eye to the revolutionary guard's own ambitions to stretch their tentacles even further across the middle east cannot and perhaps cut -- a across the middle east, and likely the western hemisphere as well. in june of 2010 -- since june of

2010, the iranian regime has at its legitimacy would end their own paranoia has increased. they have called on islamic extremist to increase their violent posture and they have called again for the annihilation of the jewish state. if this was not enough to worry about, at israel, who is our true democratic ally and trusted friend, iran pose a nuclear ambitions are moving swiftly toward a nuclear reality as the world waits with a bit of apprehension. europe, israel, and the united states must undoubtably prepare for a more dangerous iranian regime in the near future. but nothing is more dangerous than a refusal to face the facts. an examination of a way forward

with iran makes sense. whether iran and its relationships pose a threat yoto the united states, and is a question. what we do know is that they arrive -- the rhatigan revolutionary koran was involved in a plot to assassinate an ambassador to the united states. the cartel member turned out to be an informant for the u.s. drug officials and help them build a case against the perpetrators, who were subsequently arrested in new

york. therefore, the focus of this hearing, rightly belongs on the revolutionary guard corps, an organization that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the u.s., and whether the government of iran had knowledge of this scheme or not. as i alluded to earlier, the evidence is this, that the irgc is playing a role to undermine iraq, engaging directly in military activity and gathering intelligence. to furthermore, the united states and european union but agreed that the quds force providing equipment to help the syrian regime suppressed result -- revolts in syria. this information alone is a cause for concern. although i believe president obama's dual track of engagement and policy have had a

profound affect on iran's capabilities, we must prepare for other measures to prepare for the growing threat of iran. i look forward to this hearing. i look forward to what will be discussed and the ideas coming from our witnesses. i thank our witnesses today and i look forward to hearing their views on how we counter this threat and exactly how long it will be within our borders. i look forward to the testimony. >> the chair now recognizes chairman jean for an opening statement. >> thank you. this is a vital issue. i think is very appropriate that the two subcommittees came together to hold this hearing. much reference has been made this morning to the recent indictment and to the allegations regarding the plot against the u.s. by iran, or

elements within iran. i have seen much of the evidence both in this committee and in the other committee, and the totality of the evidence makes it clear that this was a very real plot. this, to me, as the chairman said, in game changer. it takes it to a new level. iran has been for many years -- to actually be contemplating what would have been an act of war against the u.s., number one, killing a foreign ambassador on american soil in the nation's capital, but also it was clear from the statements that were made, that there was a willingness to kill hundreds of americans along with that. you have the willingness to kill a foreign ambassador and hundreds of americans. this is an act of war. i do not think we can do business as usual or carry on

sanctions as usual. sanctions have been somewhat affected in the past, but because of this red line that was jumped across, further action is needed to make it clear how strongly we feel about this, and also, not just to send a message to iran, but two other nations in the region to let them know how serious we feel. i think we should dispel -- which expelled their officials. -- we should expel their officials. to send a message. those that were doing reconnaissance on the new york subway system, they should be expelled from the country. it is fairly clear that a number of representatives of the quds forests have been involved in washington and new york.

action should be taken out. additionally, i heard congressman keating reference the revolutionary guard corps. i do not believe they have been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. i think our government should make that official designation, to designate them as a foreign terrorist organization. and as the chairman said, we need to begin sanctions against iran's central bank. this would send -- these things would send clear signals. and nothing should be taken off the table. that will only emboldened iran and it will cause concern among our allies in the region. i do not believe anything should be taken off the table. let me particularly thank general keane for being here. i know of a particular work he did in formulating the surge strategy in iraq at a time

everyone thought the policy would not work. he did that work in early 2007. i want to thank you for that today. and i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member, mr. thompson. >> thank you. we recently made aware of an alleged attempt to assess -- to assassinate the saudi ambassador to the united states in washington d.c. the u.s. government has linked this assassination attempt to high-ranking iranian officials in the air -- in the revolutionary guard force. i look forward to seeing justice served in the case. the united states and iran have a long history.

even before uncovering the alleged plot to kill the saudi ambassador, the u.s. designated iran as a terrorist country. reports that iran is vigorously pursuing nuclear weapons and has ties to al qaeda is additional -- are additional reasons that the u.s. needs to pay close attention to their activities. recent remarks made by my colleagues suggest that the assassination attempt represents the crossing of a red line by a sponsor of terrorism against the united states and israel, and claims that negotiations are not working could inflame an already fragile comment. furthermore, the man awaiting trial is accused of attempting to enlist and mexican drug cartel member to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the

u.s. although, some have made the point to capitalize on a possible alliance between the robins and the mexican drug cartel, the facts indicate otherwise. we must be careful to stick to the facts. we must not overstate, nor overreact to the current threat we face from iran. some have criticized the sanctions we placed on iran as too soft and have suggested taking actions that would lead us on the path of escalation. but iran is a nation that has already isolated itself from the world community. it has now lost even more credibility following its latest round of illegitimate elections and the arabs green -- arab spring that has swept through the release. i thank the witnesses for being here today. i look forward to their

testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. let me first say that i recently met with the fbi agents and the agents involved in this case. -- the dea agents involved in this case. i want to congratulate them. this was a true joint operation that worked the way it is supposed to work. i want to personally thank them on the record. and with that, we have a distinguished panel of witnesses today. general jacking is a four-star general who completed 37 -- general keane is a four-star general who completed 37 years in the service. he also serves as chairman of the institute for the study of war. thank you for being here today. next, we have a market -- mark garrett, a senior fellow with the foundation for the defense of democracy, where he focuses on iran, afghanistan and iraq

and terror intelligence. he formerly served at the cia as the director of their operations. then we have matt levitt, the founder of the study of counterintelligence at the washington institute for a mideast policy. dr. lawrence korb, a senior fellow at the american institute for progress. previously, he was the director of national security studies at the council on foreign relations. he also served as assistant secretary of defense for manpower. we're very honored here today to have colonel timothy garrity, who entered the marine corps in 1959, following graduation from

st. louis university. he commanded a reconnaissance company in vietnam, and while a lieutenant colonel, served on a special assignment with a special operations group. he commanded the 24th marine amphibious unit in beirut in 1983 as part of the multinational peacekeeping force. upon his retirement from the marine corps, he returned to the cia to serve in the counter- terrorism center. colonel gary b., let me personally thank you for your service and your brave actions on that day in beirut. we will never forget the marines that died that day. with that, i'd like to thank general king for his testimony. >> thank you. i appreciate you inviting me to share my views with you. it is probably one of the most

unique testimony is i have provided year with bringing these two committees together, and also, the number of chairs and ranking minority members that are here. also, to be on this panel with these distinguished colleagues that will share their views with you as well. -- iranian on gold operation bungled operation to use proxies' to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states is a stunning rebuke to the obama administration's policy of negotiation and isolation with the iranians. indeed, republican and democratic administrations since 1980 have failed to deal effectively with the harsh reality that iran is our number one strategic enemy in the world. frankly, the iranians stated as much in the 1980's, that the u.s. was the enemy of the islamic revolution, and their intent was to drive the u.s. out of the region.

therefore, they have been systematically killing us for over 30 years. as mentioned in 1983, there proxy's come on hezbollah, blew up the american embassy, the marine barracks in lebanon with a total of almost 500 lives lost. it would not only have no response to this tragedy, but we pulled our troops out of lebanon. in 1983, the iran in-back extremist groups blue of the u.s. embassy in kuwait and attacked raytheon's residential area, killing and wounding over 80. in 1984, the cia station chief william buckley was captured and eventually killed, which was the beginning of an iranian-backed campaign to take a high-profile hostage -- hostages over a 10- year time frame. this led to an ill-fated move by

the reagan administration to exchange arms for hostages. a flight in route to rome was forced to land in beirut, which led to the killing of a u.s. navy diver end dumping his body on the tarmac. in 1996, the u.s. air force tower barracks in saudi arabia was blown up by the iranian- backed hezbollah, killing 19 and wounded almost 400. again, our intelligence identify the culprits as iranian-backed hezbollah. we had no response and eventually shut down a u.s. military bases in saudi arabia. since 2003 in iraq, the iranians have provided rockets, mortars, and enhanced ied's and money to the shiite militia, who were

directly involved in the killing of u.s. troops in iraq. moreover, the shiite militia were trained by the quds force, assisted by hezbollah at training bases in iran. white -- while the iranians were defeated politically in 2009, the president's decision to recently withdraw all troops in iraq puts our position at risk and plays right into the hands of the iranians. statetion arm for iran's sponsorship of terrorism outside their borders is led by general cussing some money, who has been charged -- general kasim soulemanieh, who has been in

charge for 15 years. he reports to the supreme leader. surely, the supreme leader must have approved this reason plant and, moreover, expected it. we appear to have a policy of rhetorical condemnations when the iranians engage in behavior adverse to the interest of the united states, engaged in on- again off-again negotiations, while the iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons. if we have imposed sanctions on iran and and attempted to isolate them in the world, which as best as we can tell, also has had no impact on their pursuit of nuclear weapons or their sponsorship of terrorism. we also must admit that the iranians are not without their own challenges, having two fledgling democracies on their borders and iraq and afghanistan

is a huge ngo-political threat to their own preservation of their regime. the arabs sprint is a repudiation of radical islam. social justice and economic opportunities are the mainstream of western democracies. certainly, the iranians are attempting to take advantage of the opportunities the social unrest in the our spring provide, but no one has demonstrated on behalf of their flawed values. losing a state-sponsored terrorist blye gaddafi is a setback for them to be sure. that said, it is time to review our strategy for iran against the harsh riyadh the that, despite our rhetoric,

tends to negotiate -- a tense negotiations ... -- one must conclude the obviouswhat can we? we can begin to treat iran as the strategic enemy they are. as such, it developed a competitive free markeamework. the international community cooperation. we must act. it is much like we did with al qaeda. limit their ability to trade by denying their entry to ports around the world. limit the ability for the banks

to operate effectively. conduct covert operations led by the cia. provide information and encouragement inside iran to put pressure. they have a chance to compel a behavior change. this much i do know. if we continue the measures of the past, they will continue to kill us. they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. the nightmare they are waiting is a round the corner.

>> thank you for that excellent analysis. >> we recognize him for his testimony. >> it is a pleasure to be invited by the committee. there were few individuals on this town who believe that iraq could be turned around. i am going to talk about operations. about half i have read about how i have got back in time -- about how i have gone back in time. a great deal of conversation occurred to after the plot was revealed.

they said they could not believe they were responsible. they describe him as being a conscious man. they cannot believe that they were involved because the operation was so lame. it could not have happened because this was the 80's. i rainy and operations -- iranian operations are always organized. this reminded me of my favorite bombing run in paris in 1986 where they let loose against the french. the french support of iraw. they bombed paris repeatedly.

the individual who is responsible for that was a tunisian muslim who converted to islam. they were a failed seller of vegetables and fruit in the streets of paris. they found him to be an ideal candidates to bomb paris. with less than a fortnight, they have ripped the whole thing apart. it was obvious they had done it. i tracked operations already

plays in the 1980's and 1990's. many succeeded. they killed individuals. it did not take very long to put all the pieces together. they really do not hide all that much. that is the real truth. i might make a slight digression and say that all intelligence services are not as good as you think they are. they make a lot of mistakes. it is important to remember this. these services largely reflected the domestic ethic. it is one of burt force. these are the costs -- brutal

force. these are the costs. they do not have one body of folks working outside of the country. just the thugs inside. it is the burts and thugs in both places. do not buy the argument from those who said it cannot be because of them. this the nature of the game. this is how it is done. we will take your mind back to something that hurt us. it is pause tivoli comical. -- it is positively comical. they were almost able to sink the uss cole.

the intelligence game, the prize goes to those that just do. what they do is they persist. it is important to note that it is better than a 50/50 guest. it is more like a 9-10 guess. it has been approved. he has been a somewhat cautious man. this analysis is overrated. he has turned the theocracy into

a dictatorship. he has moved members like they are musical chairs. he is in control of that system. i guarantee you he will be gone soon. he will most likely be dead soon. at in theed to lookin future, what i think they will do -- the only reason they hvae not it the u.s. in the past is because they fear a response. they have had active operations in the west.

they have not engaged in legal operations so far as me know in united states. they have been scared. they have been scared of the possible outrage coming from the united states. their reaction was silence and fear. it went away. the americans started talking about afghanistan and iraq as a failure. their attitude started to change. they got away with it.

it is clear that they had the conception that they could have a operation. they could get away with it. the only way i would would argue that you would stop that attitude is that you have to convince them that you will escalate. you do not want to run away from its. you want to run toward it. you are more than willing to front. otheanother >> i would ask that you wrap this up to give time for questions and answer. >> what i would suggest the committee's look at is that they look at canada. that is where they have had much success.

they move them south. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you very much. it is a privilege to testify before you. this is nothing new. they decided to carry out an attack that would have killed many more americans if they did not have any concern about the possibility of killing centers. this is something new. there have been passed plots and many more abroad including targeting a saudi diplomat.

iran has been teieied to extra killings. questions have been raised about this plot and professionalism and why they would decide to carry out attacks. i would like to answer some of those questions if there is time. we have to answer this now. i do not think anyone would have said it was unprofessional had the person they turned to not been under cover. this was success of the u.s.. had they not gone to that individual, no one would have dismissed it. this is not dismiss a formal

nexus. it would have been an effort to seek reasonable deniability. tensions persist. iran would sponsor deniable attacks abroad. by reaching out, it is a cutout. they could have been building for themselves some reasonable deniability. [inaudible] i would argue that the fact that

they have suffered several recent failure suggests that they may not be quite as blunt as people assume they had been. consider the foiled plot where two hezbollah members were released. consider reports in turkey. i agree that if the head did something like this without hire authorization, he is in for tough times. in the past, all of these have been tied not only back to iran the high levels of leadership.

they assess that iran had been responsible for numerous attacks in the past year. they were probably approved in advance by the president and other senior leaders. we will find something along those lines. why would they want to carry it out now? they are all kind of reasons. the president came out saying that the saudi king told u.s. officials that we should be doing something against iraq on -- iran. tensions are as high as they were. the radical elements are a distance. it led to increase in taxes. there is a shadow war going on.

it could force people defecting members of the nuclear program. all of these may be had in effect. what should be done? we would not want to do something that libya prejudicial. the country does not have a summit for a major military intervention. what can be done right now? none of these are more than pinpricks. if we do them right now, we could send a message even before the trial is over. i think we have to do something right. we should be working with allies. we should work to get some of the larger indices, especially

in south america. members of the government testified before congress that they would do this then. we have long list of people. we should restrict the movement diplomats said they cannot go outside capital cities or do anything more than what they came for. they were about to go to this meeting. nothing else. no press. i think the gcc can be brougfht in here. i do think this is something

that should be done. this is a viable target. this is a time when we in the europeans are facing some serious economic problems. this is something that will have to be answered before i get people there. the membership should be suspended as long as they gaug engage. there is a lot that we are doing. we can be publicizing it. there's more we can be doing. one other thing that can be

done is greater customs control. we do have the officers in brussels doing the work on procurementh iran's and customs violation. there's pressure for setting up a small body that might share information in timely manner. they can highlight their custom violation. a lot more detail in my written testimony. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. i have testified over 100 times. i am honored. i would like to begin by

pointing out that the success of the law enforcement people here playing a critical role shows that in dealing with the threat that we can work with our law enforcement agencies. it is undertaking illicit nuclear programs. why it may be emotionally satisfying, it may be the wrong step. if the go back and look at our chairman, everyone agrees that it was an overreaction and created problems that plagued us with the rest of the 20th century. they wanted us to bomb china. in vietnam, people talked about nuclear-weapons.

people wanted us to invade cuba. any of the steps would have been disastrous. one example of us overreacting is the mindless, and needless, senseless invasion of iraq. it underlines our image throughout the world and make people listen more this is a sign of desperation. it shows that the sanctions are working. why we should not take anything off the table, we should use this occasion as an opportunity to assemble the coalition to increase the sanctions and follow the advice of admiral mullen says we have direct relations with the soviet union.

we should follow that up. when people talk about the sanctions not working, i am reminded of a man that i served with. they called it the misery index. it is over 30. this political turmoil you had in the elections. you had the facts that they're trying to undermine the president. there is a reports that they're trying to do away with the presidency. the nuclear program is not working. he is the foremost experts. think the key to the sanctions has got to be getting

international consensus. the sanctions that were adopted since june had approval and all other countries involved. i applaud president obama for freezing the assets. i think we should begin to move toward getting sessions -- sanctions. everybody talks about horrible iran is. they were the first muslim country to condemn the attacks of 9/11. george bush's ambassador said without the support they would not have been installed. 20 have to put things into perspective and recognize there have been times they work with us. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> last sunday was the 20th anniversary -- 28th anniversary of the beginning of a war. it was on that day through coordinated suicide bombers killed people under my command as well as 58 french peacekeepers. they led to the withdrawal of u.s. national peacekeeping forces. this has evolved. perhaps the most significant development that came out of the beirut vision was the scent of ir -- the ascent of iran as a

major player. deployedrly 1980's, it through damascus a contingent of the revolutionary guards. that is during the height of the iranian/iraqi war. they established a training base that remains an act of public activity today. they train to hezbollah. they use those to attack the peacekeepers. we can see that iran's entry was a gamechanger. they raised the statute in popularity and influence

throughout the arab world. they have the capability today to cause havoc on several fronts that provides distractions why the nuclear centrifuges spin. hamas,upport al qaeda, hum los and islamic jihad. they used the force in iraq. some key leaders sewer implementing the policies harkened back to closer scrutiny.

the veteran commander of the irgc was named minister of defense in 2005. in 1983, he was directly responsible for the beirut truck bombing. he is the minister of interior in iran. they have redeployed around the captialitals there. while you are not hearing any protests. his disputed re-election

reveals another connection. his selection puts down those protests at that time. hizbollaheorted some thugs. [inaudible] he participated in peacekeeping bombings. he founded the force, serving as first commander. he is on the most wanted list thethe bombings of israeli embassy. 8 for was linked in 200 fo

the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems while overseeing the research and development of the destruction. leading stateld's sponsor of terrorism. the expanding relationship between iran, the president and hugo chavez requires closer vigilance. this is clear propaganda to provide cover for other activities. plans include venezuela to

produce the automatic weapons. beside having major operating basis, they have established another 1 in venezuela's islands. these are not monitored. it brings back memories of my multinational peacekeeping headquarters in in bay roots. this later involved in in late '80s as a terrorist club. the command has expressed concern on the growing connections between iran and hezbollah. this is happening -- not

happening without a purpose. the operations have formed a partnership with major drug cartels. they have been smuggling routes to smuggle people and contraband into the united states. this should cause a red flags to fly. i know a lot of attention is being paid across the home security communities. we have to presume that these are in the united states and being fortified. it is an invitation to disaster. reports show countries other

than mexico were apprehended. it questioned how many we mess. this involved a key force commander means to the killing of u.s. troops in iraq. it should come again as no surprise. the leader of that group operated with in the iraqi militia. according to a treasury report comment he supplied this with the weaponry.

a cousin was arrested. the bizarre plot involving using mexican drug traffickers to bomb the restaurant in washington. when you stop and realize, that is not a cold, hard call. this provides some insight to the nature of the threat we face. they discussed israeli embassies of in washington. my question is did it involve a

truck bombing model used by the u.s. embassy. in closing,ssy's i believe iran is intent on attackin gu ig us in th ehomela. all one needs to do is review their strategy and attacks. their ideology mixed with patriot makes as a prime target. this has proven to be

successful while avoiding any repudiation -- retribution for the carnage they have brought. one of the questions we should ponder is that if they feel that they could go nuclear with impunity. the commendable work being performed daily is a matter of record. our national unity and vigilance is required now more than ever. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your service, particularly in tragic day in a rout. -- in beirut. we have had a timid response

since 1979. you outline all the attacks on the interest of the united states. in the failure of either respond to the threat. now we have an attempted assassination attempt on a foreign official. it was foiled. this goes to the highest levels. it may have directed the plan. this is very bold. it deserves a proper response. he mentions this has failed. we're still facing this threats

that continues. we need to treat iran as a stra tegic enemy. what do you think should be the proper response to deal with iran? >> step one is to recognize them are sure to check enemy. i am not suggesting that a first bush should be a military one. let's face it. even the sanctions we use a have never had any major impact on these guys. they are not tough enough. lay down every single interest they have encountered that. we know when they took power they took all the business interests around the world.

they have these business interests. ofre billionaires' because it. why do tolerate that? there's so many other things they could do. people have outlined those things. but not wring our hands if they do not want to step up to it. we go without them. if we do not take serious measures and introduce fair to them, they're going to keep killing us until they get a weapon that can surely hurt us. i am suggesting that we get comprehensive reform about what we are doing. i am saying that we put our hands around the throat right now. we have is a bit again cyber capability that no one has.

we can do limited cyber attacks. why aren't we doing that? it to have a rather dramatic impact. why are we allowing the leaders to still walk around? why don't we kill them? we kill other people but are running terrorist organizations. these guys that killed almost 1000 of us. why don't we killed them? we kill them? i am not suggesting military action. it has a degree of deniability to it. a partner to the left and as more than i could ever know. >> i only have a minute left. i agree.

i do not think anyone wants to go to war with iran. i want to give you the last word. you discussed a connection between iran and venezuela. hezbollah forces are at in latin america. could you expand upon this? >> it is like a scene i have seen before. it is preventing any larger issue or accommodation between the palestinians and israelis.

they have expanded that. they have become a major player and threats. they are moving to lebanon at a time we were there on a peacekeeping mission. the bomb that we face was not put together by machines. it is the largest non-nuclear explosion ever recorded. it was really predetermined, the destruction of the mission at the same time. the commanderthat

of assassination connection is as one of thepenin key guys. he is the one that founded it. just look at the jobs he has had. he is the minister of defense. it lays out a road map. he was expelled from bolivia from the interpol. he is probably the key guy for specific missions. i would think it has that kind of influence.

>> i think this would be helpful. these cannot be checked by interpol. i have lawmakers tell me that you're going to iran. it is time to start stepping up to the plate. >> thank you to all of our witnesses. i do not think we can say often enough the great services you provide to our country. but me start with you. you testified about if you the sanctions.

can you describe the u.s. sanctions there designed to restrict the access to the global financial system stoc >> they followed up the sanctions of their own. the goal is to restrict iran's access to the global system. there perot hichens -- there are provisions that prohibit access but there's reason to believe the services could assist iran. the sanctions have been more powerful than most people expected. they have had tangible effects on the oil industry. that is why i mentioned what president reagan mentioned.

>> it may be a sign of the weakness and the expiration. can you expand upon that? >> if you look at the fact that the government is in chaos, they are concerned about the arab spring which is underlying the an iranian narrative. we know when the president expected some of this, they give nuclear ones that could be used for medicinal purposes. he was undermined.

their same that they do not want to have a president anymore. the fact that they allow this renegade, this was the key. if you look at this was done, this is the country is in disarray. they're becoming desperate. >> of do you have any knowledge of how this money could have been moved so we did not know about it?

>> none of us know how it happened. it has not been made public. there are many ways it could have been sent. it is a combination of both. it probably was sent from iran in some way that is able to be traced. the complete -- you can pretty easily send the funds. crises of the nuclear program is not working. can the elaborate? >> as you mentioned, the government officials and david

albright is monitored as closely as saying that as a result of the virus and with the sanctions that are happening that their nuclear program is not or they would like it to be. they would like to move in the direction that they would like. it is very interesting. they do not have the weapons yet. this shows the international community has made it difficult for them. we talk about russia backed off a deal they made.

>> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you to this panel who has opened our eyes. we will go back to what we would have been through before. we talked about the failure of imagination. you have identified the concept of red flags. we have worked on this issue. what we begin to study more is the use of these proxies'. it is increasingly closer to our homeland. we heard about the activity

inside the margarita islands. we seen the creation of relationships with mexican drug cartels. the significance to me is the reality that this cartel could create the opening of opportunity for terrorists to get into our country much easier than we had anticipated. there is an eye iranian -- an iranian presence in cacanada. we have some desperation on the port. we also heard testimony about sloppiness and persistence. it is clear that the game at remarkably changes if iran ever

gets a nuclear weapon. this prepares -- appears to be a remarkable opportunity. show be concerned about the opportunity of iranian-in fluenced proxies' to use that as leverage against any kind of stands against iran. we have discussed sanctions. we had discussed the capability. what are the implications? what should we be doing next? >> i have nothing against

sanctions. i am in favor of most of what we might do. there are a lot of things we can do. ule iran haveo rol killed people. it has become more coercive and not less. they do not respond in the same economic ways that we do. iran would not look like the country this day they were not concerned about the bottom line. you would not get the attention unless you shoot somebody. it is sompretty blunt. you should hold them responsible.

go get him. either tried to capture or kill them. you have to send a pretty powerful message to those work down the road you are asking for it. they are not reading it as a person who is strong but as someone who is not. >> there are things that divide that could be said again spirited to have to get to -- there are things that have been said that have been significant. >> you could aggressively put the operations overseas. you have to have a consensus to do that.

you'd have to have the approval to do that. it is washington, d.c. he may find out that this type of covert action is much more difficult then to go after him when he travels. >> i agree. there has to be something clear that is done. they reported that many leaders have broken u.s. resolve. i agree that something like this really is a red flag. the question is how to respond. i do not think we have to put a

bullet in someone's head. there should be a significant action program in place to deal with these things. sometimes they would put the diplomat in different places. this can be very effective. i think the sanctions have been tremendously effective. let's be clear. they will never solve your problem. where they are most effective is in disruption. they have slowed down the

program. they have not ended it. if every seam months we think they're going to get a bomb, that is a level of victory. does not get us where we want to be. all of these have to be done in a way that will send a message that we're serious. right after this plot was revealed, the treasury designated several individuals to reveal more information about the nature of the plot including oneek designating him the terrorism cases. are even designated twice.

this was done at the very highest levels. and not think we're using the tools enough. we are risk averse. there are extremely aggressive. >> we are running over the time frame. >> he did not use his entire five minutes. maybe we can give him a minute. we like to solve problems.

if we overreact, this will unite them. if you were told americans back with president truman came up with it that the cold war could last another 40 years, it cannot have it that long. i think he needs to be patient. the need to keep taking these steps. the more consensus began, the more effective they will be. >> i need to try something. my time is limited. but given commons and asked three different questions. it is my recollection that the

presence has not ruled out military action. i have heard his statement. what more can he do? now the three questions. i was astounded. tell me that they did not believe the united states killed osama bin laden. i asked them how they came to that conclusion. i asked them where they came to that conclusion. they all cited the information and propaganda coming from iran. i think it is pretty effective if they could ever come to that

conclusion. i think it has been touched on. it is a it is a common thread that has been mentioned. what are the threads in the western hemisphere that we should be really be vigilant about? the third thing is an axiom about the enemy is your friend. it is my belief that within iran, there is an internal conflict historically and i think it still exists with the ayatollah and ahmadinejad. as the -- is the u.s., not intentionally, but is the u.s. acting in a way that we are inhibiting that internal conflict from incubating and maybe causing problems with in

iran itself? those are the three questions. i will try to open to anyone who wants to answer. the first being propaganda, the second being the western hemisphere, the third is, are we doing things and intentionally to -- unintentionally to not let the population of their internal conflict grow? >> first of all, on the propaganda, i think we have to recognize that because we invaded iraq under false pretenses, people do not trust a lot of what we say in that part of the world. also, during the 1990's, we cut back on the u.s. agency and i do not think we have it to where it stands now. remember, they had a democracy. but we overthrew it. then there is a shot that began developing nuclear weapons.

and basically, after they helped us in afghanistan and got the no. alliance, which were their allies to support the karzai government, president bush put them on the axis of evil. therefore, they went back to some of their aggressive behavior. >> i'm going to let pass lares of rendition of history and go to the discussion of internal events. i will just say this. when president obama came into office and had a very in court -- aggressive policy of engagement and was writing letters to the khamenei. that did have a profound affect. what did spuck -- it did the opposite of what the president got what happened.

khamenei gives a speech shortly after and refers to a speech about satan incarnate. president obama actually said his fear about the united states and the western cultural invasion when the pro-democracy green movement started shouting in persia, a shortened version of "he is with us," that have a catalytic effect on the people because they thought obama was standing with them in the pro- democracy movement. the president actually was not. he was trying to have a dialogue directly with khamenei and his focus was not on what would come later with the green movement. but the u.s. can have an internal effect. i would suggest and argue that incident should tell you that if the u.s. actually does talk

about democracy in iran, if it actually uses its puli pulpit to challenge the regime on its internal oppression, it actually can encourage a change and reinforce the people inside psychologically. when we do not do that, i think we send signals to the regime that we do not really care. some iranian diplomats who defected have made it crystal clear to folks that when they would write their cables back to tehran, the americans and europeans would see them and talk only about one thing, the nuclear program. what did those diplomats right back home? but they do not care about anything else. that is a mistake. >> the other thing i would add is that we know how to do this propaganda. we have a history of having done it affectively. we did it somewhat effectively

and countering soviet union propaganda. but it does take authorities, resources, and perseverance to do it. >> may i suggest it is easier these days because of social networking to be even more effective? >> very much so. in my statement i said we should be targeting iran with this kind of effort in terms of making an impact on the people. when there were almost 1 million people in the streets of tehran in july, we had no response to that movement. and this is one of the most oppressive regimes that we have and we did not respond. and side with them, much as we have responded to the polish movement, the ukrainian movement, and others around the world when people get into the streets and fraud against a

dictatorship. there is much we can do. it should be one of the other things in our bag. >> one final comment and then i will relinquish my time period is over. there are things that we cannot talk about that are classified, obviously. but many of the things that you suggested that this government should be doing, i would suggest that perhaps we are already doing them and we just cannot talk about them. thank you. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you for your testimony today. i have a couple of questions. this is regard to -- with regard to the cartels. and this is for the general and the colonel. does it stand to reason that the iranians would not have approached the cartels for the first time with a task as delicate and important as assassinating an ambassador, and does it not suggest a level of trust indicative of a pre- existing relationship? whoever would like to address

that. the general or the krul. -- or the colonel. >> after you, general. [laughter] >> the answer is obvious from my perspective. of course, it is indicative to conduct something as vital as an attack inside the united states, there is got to be a relationship there and there has got to be some trust in the relationship. i want to associate my remarks with ruel and i totally disagree with dr. korb that this is somehow an act of desperation. i totally dismissed that theory. that they would come to the united states -- they came to the united states to do this because they believe it is going to advantage them in their part of the world. and they are trying to get the influence of the united states

and the west out of their region. and they firmly believe -- and they're totally right and it would have gotten away with it. when ahman was in africa in 1988, we lost 400 -- when bin laden was in africa in 1988, we lost 400 people dead. in response, we threw some missiles to a training base in afghanistan. i think bin laden concludes, i just killed 400 of them and they will not even come for us. if i think we can come for them because they are weak. that is why they are here, because we are weak. that is what they believe. they are here because they believe we are weak and we are not going to respond. >> thank you. this question is for mr. gerecht. is it true that some of the car bombs being used by the cartels

and mexico are similar to those being used in iraq by ron's terror proxies' their? does this indicate possible collusion? >> i am not a wiring expert. i doubt it. i think the knowledge of bombs sort of gets around. proliferation not only occurs with high technology. it also occurs with low technology. i am not sure you need to see links in car bombs to suggest you have active engagement. byou might. i am not denying it. i'm just saying that this type of knowledge is fairly ubiquitous and it spreads easily. >> anyone else want to comment? >> i will just say generally that we should be wary of jumping too quickly to the conclusion that in order for there to have been this type of cooperation, it has to be into

it -- it has to of been institutionalized with loss of trust. the d.a. has found many times that with different types of facilitators, great people that work in a list of industries and many of all types. the same thing happens in mexico, the same people who will move things will move guns or money or people. sometimes it is just an opportunity. if there was a business in mexico, maybe some illicit business, apparently had a contact with this person he thought was part if a drug cartel and it turns out he was a source of ours, it could have been about. seizing an opportunity to leverage a connections out of the border with someone who might do this just for money. sometimes it might be that simple. it is still telling because there are opportunities to leverage those types of relationships, but it does not

necessarily mean that these are institutionalized. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member, mr. johnson. >> thank you. but let me say from the beginning that while there might have been some acts perpetrated before the last three years of this administration that might have been characterized from a response standpoint as weak, i am very comfortable that under the obama administration we have taken some very, very bad people out. there's no question about it. the record is clear. this notion that somehow, as a country, we are weak, from my

standpoint i want to make sure -- there are some that disagree with that. but that being said, given the situation we are in now with the drawdown in iraq and the situation with iran, i want to ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter into the record a statement by the u.s. ambassador susan rice. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and going forward, dr. korb, can you give some of us on the committee how you think diplomacy from the u.s. standpoint going forward would be important? some have talked about expelling any iranian official from this country and going to other

levels. but i would like you, and i will ask a couple of the other gentleman also, where does diplomacy fit in this situation where we are today? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, i support what animal mollen -- admiral mullen, who recently stepped out as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who says the we are not talking to the iranians and we ought to understand each other. i think we ought to keep the contact open to the extent that you can. and i agree with you that the president basically, reaching out to them, wanting to negotiate, it demonstrates to people in iran that we are not the enemy or completely against them. if you go back and take a look

at -- iraq attacked iran. i was in government then. and we supported iraq by giving them photos that said they used chemical weapons on iran. there are things that we have done that i think by reaching out and talking to them and being willing to negotiate will undermine the narrative of some people in iran that will -- at are just out to harm them and we do not agree with their role in the world. i am all for keeping contacts open and talking to them to the extent that we can. as admiral mullen mentioned, the darkest days of the cold war were not just the sum u.s. interests were involved, but u.s. existence were involved and we kept channels open with the soviet union. >> in general, -- general, given

your 37 years of military experience, what role do you see the military having with respect to iran where we are today? the doctor told -- talked about diplomacy, but i want to talk about the military. >> let me respond to something you already said. what i used the term week, i was using a round's perception of us. if i was not using my perception of my country. just to clarify that. and i believe bin laden, when he believed we were weak, he totally underestimated the united states and the character of our people. i think he found that out, obviously. the royal military place right now with iraq -- the role the military plays right now with

iran, primarily is planning. the u.s. military has been asked to put together a plan to conduct war with this country on a different basis. this is not unusual for us. if we have to do that sort of planning in the event we have strategic surprise for the unpredictable takes place. in this case, we planned for all-out war with them to include a ground war. and we dealt with limited action to deal with money of the straits -- a violation of the mining of the strait of hormuz, or to deal with action against nuclear capability. there is a whole scale of response that the u.s. military house planned and those plans have been briefed all the way to this president of the united states, and they are approved as planned. that is what the u.s. military

does, and then it goes out and educates and trains officers and leaders in the military on how to do this and conducts a cast -- exercises. i have kyrgyz updated when i was a division commander and a corps commander simulation exercises concerning iran may be a dozen times. you would want us to do that. if this event happens that we do not want to do it -- want to happen, and we do with a minimal loss of life. there is push back against the proxy's, the iranian proxies' in iraq. and we pushed it back against the parties that they use with the taliban in providing the taliban with ammunition and resources. we are obviously pushing back against those. but the primary one is what i just stated to you.

>> thank you. >> the chair recognizes ms. speer for unanimous request. >> habré like to ask unanimous consent that the gentle lady from texas to be seated to last question. >> without question, so order. >> i want to thank the general and the colonel for their service in the united states military. i specifically want to thank the, -- the colonel for his role, so to speak, in beirut in 1983. i would like to enter into the record -- a friend of mine from high school, lance corporal tim mcneeley, who played football with my brother and i knew personally, who died in the marine corps barracks there in 1983. it is not lost on a lot of us that have been following this

situation that the quds force and the terrorist arm of iran, hezbollah, has been involved with the mexican drug cartel for quite awhile. we have raised awareness, mr. chairman, a number of times about this in my short 10 months of being in congress. i want to encourage the members of the committee that have not signed on to resolution 429, which mr. higgins and i have sent aid dear colleague letter around on, and that basically urges the administration to include the western hemisphere in the administration's 2012 national strategy for counter- terrorism area of focus. because we are aware of peace -- of the region, we are aware of venezuela and the stronger working relationship between hezbollah and the mexican cartel

and the quds force and the drug cartels. i would urge you to appreciate that. knowing our southern border, a colonel, and knowing there is a working relationship that has been revealed, what could we be doing differently as a sovereign nation on our southern border to keep any infiltration of personnel or weapons into this country? >> i live in arizona. it has gotten better, no question. it through the efforts of a lot of dedicated people. but i have to look back from a historical standpoint at how these things develop and what we can do and what impact they have. they are always hard to measure, particularly in real time.

and it is delayed reaction that is usually after an attack. i use as a sample of that from personal history the mission in the report, the blowing up -- in beirut, the blowing up of our embassy, the attacks on our two embassies in east africa that were talked about earlier and that essentially went by with no response. al qaeda never had the capability for the suicide coordinated attacks that hezbollah pulled off during the beirut mission that killed us. they did not have that expertise, and boat -- bin laden took inspiration from the success of those attacks, and part of that was our non- response. and there was -- until there was

a meeting between him and the point man for the shiita who was part of our intelligence later, they had a meeting in sudan in 1996. al qaeda's first coordinated, simultaneous suicide bombing, first mission where the two -- were the two u.s. embassies in east africa. and they expanded that same the root model -- beirut model for the coordinated hijackings and coordinated attacks for us here on 9/11. i use that, and with all the activity that is going on -- what we know about, and more importantly, what we do not know about -- as building operational

basis in venezuela and south margarita island. and remember, hezbollah has been operating drug-trafficking indeed try border regions for a long time. -- tri-border regions for a long time. they are familiar with this and i'm sure, have very good contacts with the different ones. they are shopping, probably, in all of this. when they say the this was a bombing attack that should not be taken seriously and all of this, -- bumbling attack that should not be taken seriously and all of this, the cannot ignore that. they know our vulnerabilities and they know how to play this every which way. and i could not agree more that when you have a link to an assassination in this country in our capital of the saudi

ambassador, the boldness that they have to try, and just what that back and who the current minister of defense and what their background and so on, i would take this threat very seriously. again, the whole threat ties into what we do not know as much as what we do know. i know that the fbi and intelligence community, there is a lot of great work and it is one of the reasons we have not been attacked here. but i will guarantee you that the iranians and this current crowd that runs them, they are driven by the ideology and so on.

if we are on their target is primarily. -- we are on their target list primarily. they have key targets that are spectacular, coast to coast or mumba styleven a naamu attack and so on, because hate and humiliation go hand in hand with their view of the best western united states. -- the west and the united states. >> i agree that relationship between hezbollah and the drug cartels is very powerful and very dangerous. >> i want to thank the witnesses for a very enlightening discussion. mr. gerecht, if i understood you

to imply or suggest that the government's of iran -- governance of iran is such that you do not necessarily get the same response that you might get from the use of sanctions with another country, and that maybe there is a distance between the governing bodies and the people to the extent that sanctions may not play the same role that they in another country? >> yes, i think that sanctions in iran have been effective in many ways, but if you just take the guard corps, for example, they have gotten richer and more

powerful as the sanctions have gotten tougher. for them the last five years have been pretty good years. i think you always have to try to see it the way they see it. and the thing about the guard corps, actually, is they have lots of publications. they have their own world. it is not that hard to read the guard corps. i have met a few guardsmen. in addition, it is not hard to get a grasp of how they see the world because they are fairly forthright in telling you. there have been nuances and variations between individuals at the bottom of the guard corps and those of the top. family history, etc. comes into play. but when a supreme leader tells you he is not scared of sanctions, he is telling you the truth. he is not. that is not to say sanctions have not heard them and that bureaucracy in the business

community is not aware of the damage that they have gone to iran, but i think you have to be very careful in believing that the sanctions that would make us stand up and take notice do the same to them. and it is natural that the iranians would gravitate and not be spooked by any drug cartels because the resort is responsible for the vast majority of the movement of all opiates that come from afghanistan and go to turkey. it is one of the major income producers. they would gravitate toward that. it is natural. it is not something that would be uncomfortable for them. >> thank you very much. recognizing that sanctions have been used as a diplomatic tool for a long time -- i mean, it is a kind of normal reaction, often times, ultimately where we get normal.

dr. love it, how do we assess, i mean, how do we make the assessment of how impact will the use of sanctions might be? how do we determine whether it is doing what we want it to do, or whether it is something we are doing but the value is not there and we are not getting the kind of responses that we might be looking for? >> the pity but most honest answer is -- be pithy but most honest answer is, with care. at the court is, what are you trying to achieve it is -- at its core is where you try to achieve with sanctions? they are very effective. there are ways they can be done

better. there are things we should be doing more, but it has been tremendously successful there. do you also think or expect or hope anywhere along that spectrum that you will put enough sanction and economic misery on either the revolutionary regime, or even at some point, the people? given the most of the sanctions we have our on those in the illicit conduct. do you expect that some combination of sanctions would call for the carcass of this regime and make it the side, for example, that perhaps a nuclear program is on a guarantor of its survival, but an inhibitor, something that might cost their survival? i do not think that is the case. i do not think that we will be able to do that. but we can do enough sanctions that will be increasingly destructive, by us more time,

and ultimately do things -- and i think as a designation of the central bank that would have more impact on the country. i agree with you that what we need to do now -- and i think i'm still a minority on this, but i think we sincerely need to better make a cocktail of sanctions -- mix the cocktail of sanctions. for multilateral reasons we have focused on sanctions that are graduated and targeted on those involved in the most illicit conduct. it is only going to be so effective. i think we need to fold into the mix some sections that will have an impact on the people on the ground as well. ultimately, this is a tool, not a policy. it is a tool, which is used in

tandem with other tools, can be effective. but my problem is -- and i used to complain about the soliton minton -- when i was in government is, not because it is the right tool, but because we have difficulties in other problems we want to use this tool because we can say it has done something. that is the worst time to use the tool. and argue and vehemently against using treasury authorities. there are ways that we can target the rgc better. i would hope this would be done multilaterally because of the affect on the international economy, which is fragile at the moment. that is not something i would say necessarily we should do unilaterally because of the impact because of the way banks worldwide react to these issues. on the flip side, much more aggressive designation's over a time frame, targeting all kinds of quds, forced entities, even

exposing them is something we could be doing unilaterally with the zero crossed. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes ms. hawn. >> this has been a very fascinating hearing. i thank the witnesses for being here. certainly, we have a wide range of experience and we have a wide range of opinion on what we need to do, when we need to do it, and how we need to carry it out. certainly, i believe the comments about iran's paid an obsession -- hate and obsession for us is really what drives their action against us, i think, even more than the fact that they might perceive us as being weak. a couple of hours ago, general

jean's testimony and mr. gerecht's testimony, general keane, you certainly believe so far that sanctions we have been using have been not as effective as they could be. and you used the term we ought to be grabbing them by their throats and ramping up the sanctions, everything from squeezing their assets, to denying their entry to ports around the world. mr. gerecht feels that until we shoot somebody, they will not pay attention. sitting here two hours later, is that still your view, general, that the ramped up version of the sanctions is where we ought to be going now? or do you feel the only way to get their attention is to use

military action and actually shoot someone? >> i do think the fact that they made this decision to come inside the united states and conduct this attack is something we should not walk away from and we should not treat it like other terrorist attacks in the region, even though many of those war against gaza as well. -- were against us as well. i am suggesting that they have been killing us for 30 years and we all know that. until we get more effective with a response, they will continue to kill us and will continue to work against our interests in the region remember, their objective is to drive us out of the region. that is clearly what they want. to date, on the merits of it, we have not been effective in stopping them from, one, killing

us, two, sponsoring terrorism, and three, continuing a program to develop nuclear weapons, which i'm convinced they have not given up on. i want to look again at the whole issue. number one cannot add -- number one, admit to what they are our strategic enemies and use all the elements of power, hold the military in check, and as i said figuratively, "getting our hands around arthrex" and use all the elements of power -- are around our throats" and use all the elements of power. i agree, yes, we should target them. my god, we have other terrorist organizations and leaders of them that we have targeted and we have killed them. why do these guys get a pass? they should not get one. they should feel that kind of pressure. i am not suggesting that we

bring in military forces and conduct operations inside iran. i am not suggesting that at all. i am suggesting that we conduct covert operations. i am suggesting that we conduct espionage that is covert as well. they have to feel some of this pressure. if we do not recognize that, i am convinced it will just continue. >> thank you. anybody else want to answer that? about backing down on shooting someone. you know, being low on the totem pole, most of my questions have been asked and answered. one thing i will ask the entire panel, none of you really mentioned it or suggested it. over the years, i think a lot of these attempts have been awarded -- thwarted thanks in

large part to our law enforcement officials on the ground. congress is in the middle of the debates on the budget. our super committee is looking at cuts to our defense. many of our homeland security grants, are looking at being pared down or eliminated altogether. i have been pushing for airport security grants to continue for another year because i still feel -- our port security grants to continue for another year because i still feel our ports of entry are vulnerable. thoughts on the importance of continuing programs that help to secure our local law enforcement efforts on the ground as a way to continue to attempt to thwart what we may not be able to stop another way.

>> the way you need to do this is to look at national security in a holistic way. whatever you decide to spend on home and security, state, all of these things, recognize that they all contribute. you mentioned port security. we spend more on when program, a missile defense, then we do on the entire coast guard. if you look at it in a holistic way, where is it likely someone is going to shoot a nuclear weapon at us with a return address or tried to smuggle it in? i would say give priority to that. but the reason you can always that you have these stovepipes in the executive branch. i would say you have to look at

it in a holistic way. for years, we were putting out a program called unified national security budget that assesses the some of those things. we took a look at how you could get more bang for the box. uck.or the bo >> i completely concur. this is an amazing example of what we can do. dhs people in brussels, for example, are doing tremendous work. sometimes, i'm concerned we minimize the importance of the role of law enforcement. it gets politicized sometimes. these are not either/or sanctions. the military is not by their/or. it is getting the cocktail rye.

-- the military is not either/or. it is getting the cocktail right. the dea is doing what it does exceptionally well every day. we need to maintain that vigilance. not me. it is you and >> thank you. >> as i indicated earlier, meeting with these agents that pulled this off, and the intelligence committee, they did a magnificent job. >> and iranian political terror he goes, there is the near enemy -- ethos, there is the near enemy, israel, but there is also far enemy, the united states. i commend my colleague, jeff

qana -- jeff duncan for including in a bipartisan resolution is focus on our nation's counter-terrorism efforts. i think it is very important. hezbollah, the party of god, is a shiite terrorist group highly committed to violent jihad. hezbollah attacks as a pawn, a tool -- and acts as a pawn, a tool for bonis with a, syria and iran. hezbollah has a presence of estimated between a few hundred and a few thousand in the 16- country region of line america. hezbollah also has a presence in 15 american cities, including four major cities in canada. we were told in previous

hearings while the confirmation of hezbollah's presence in north america is indisputable, that we should not worry that they are just here for fund-raising activities. hezbollah, a terror group committed to violent jihad, i do not make this division between fund-raising and terrorist activity. a fund-raising for terrorist activity is a terrorist activity. i represent buffalo, new york, and i know from terrorist history, terrorist cowart look for high impact target. we have a peace bridge that connects buffalo and southern ontario, the busiest northern border crossing for passenger vehicles in north america, third busiest for commercial vehicles.

and we have niagara falls, the destination of millions of people every single year. 90 miles away, toronto, a multi- cultural, fascinating, international city. we also have in close proximity the power project, which produces the cheapest, cleanest, and most electricity in all of new york state. i would like you to comment consistent with the hearings topic, iranian terror operations on american soil, be it iran directly or their proxy's who do their dirty work for them. what more could we be doing about their direct presence in 15 american cities and four major canadian cities generally in north america? >> i am grateful for the

question because i am completing a book on hezbollah opposes global presence and it has several shoppers on -- several chapters on their presence in the americas. by these one person will read it. [laughter] several years ago, in written answers in follow questions in congressional testimony from fbi officials concluded that they had seen hezbollah doing more than fundraising in this country. they see them doing pre operational and surveillance. they believe that is being done to get recruits. there are other ways to make sure that a person is capable fund-raiser other than having them surveiled u.s. government buildings. usually, they are doing things together, or with lebanese

hezbollah. but that certainly has been the in argentina. it was the m.o. earlier before the bombing in thailand, the attempted bombing of the israeli embassy there. it was awarded not because of anything counterinsurgency officials did there, but because -- it was thwarted not because of anything counterinsurgency officials that there because of -- but because of incompetence. they have had a series of failures since 2008 when they tried to resurrect a nascent for relations give ability. we need to be concerned about this and we need to be concerned about the crossing is not just to the south, but to our north. in one case that we know of, a

hezbollah guy that had actual training and was smuggled across the border from mexico, and then had connections in canada as well, was arrested trying to carry a bomb in israel -- carry out a bombing in israel. an indictment was recently released for him in the dearborn area, which was his last known address. and there's a lot of movement across the bridges, more and the michigan area, but i'm sure in yours as well. this is something we need to be cognizant of. the good news is, based on the research i have done for the book as well as my work with the fbi, have been tremendously impressed by local police and others. the work that they are doing focus on hezbollah in particular is impressive. >> a very quick comment, hezbollah is a vastly more comfortable with the expatriate

lebanese shiite population than the lebanese are with their same population. in canada, you have what i would call the second generation of iran and immigration. you have much more about communities that are much closer to the folks back home. they exist almost in ghettos in canada, which is nothing -- which is something you do not see almost anywhere else in other foreign communities. has had a certain prestige among the lebanese shiite community, even with the lebanese shiites who are not ideologically in sympathy with hezbollah. it is a problem that you have to be aware of.

that is why hezbollah is much more effective maneuvering overseas than the iranians are. it cracks thank you. -- >> thank you. the chair recognizes ms. sheila jackson weighed from texas. >> thank you to all of the chair persons and ranking members. thank you for your courtesy, but more importantly, let me congratulate you for the topic of this hearing. i think if there is ever a time of unanimity of perspective dealing with iran, it is certainly on the point that they never stop and that we have concerns that need to be addressed. let me start with you, dr. korb, on a far stretched inquiry. but why did the arab spurring this iran, even though -- the

arab spring this iran? even though about a year ago the people of iran rose up, stood on nouns. we will never forget the inside of a picture of a young woman bleeding. doctor? >> the reason it has not is very similar to what has happened in syria, bahrain, the fact that people use force or the threat of force to make sure it does not happen. remember, in egypt, the arab spring succeeded because the military refused to back the mubarak government. and in libya, once the rebels got a stronghold, the international community was able to come in. you just do not have those circumstances. many military leaders have said, the last thing you want to do is put military involvement. >> why would they say that?

>> because it would be counterproductive. it would unify the country against the threat from outside. and it also -- basically, they would then step up the activities that have been described here in other parts of the region. but i cannot emphasize too much of the time is on our side, in my view. they cannot keep doing what they are doing. the steering allies -- syria and allies, whatever happens in syria, they are no longer going to be using syria the way they used to. >> mr. garrity, i have no friendship for the iranian government. i do believe the people there, there is a body politic who want freedom. and i am also concerned in reference to war that i did

oppose, even though i respect all of those who served in iraq. i fear that we have left a maliki in the range of the government -- in -- with the reins of the government and he does not seem to be independent. to the extent that individual actors are engaged in terrorism -- >> yes? >> did you make the point and we are preparing for war against iran? is that the comment that i heard? that the military makes plants? -- plans? >> no, my comment was talking about the sanctions and so on. the sanctions that we have had for, what, 25 years against iran. as sanctions are increased and so on, one of the purposes for

the sanctions is what is the response of the one you our sanction against, which is iran? and we have seen a steady pattern of them expanding their terrorist activities. and when you just step back -- not that the sanctions have not had some affect. it is very hard to have any kind of measurements of effectiveness. they have had some and all of this, but as dr. leavitt said, they are more of a tool of policy. but back to the point of the sanctions and what they have accomplished, iran throughout this whole time has not only retain, but increase their activities as the number one

sponsor in the world of terrorism. when you look at that and the fact that they decided to go nuclear, in open defiance against a united world against this not only in the region, but worldwide. and how they are fighting that in-your-face and continuing that, yes, there has been -- the current sanctions are disrupting out. but at some point in time, are these going to be effective enough in order to have iran changed their behavior? that is constantly being looked at. it is not going to war with them. the other thing in iran -- and i refer people to read the book by the iranian -- it is a pseudonym. the book is called "a time to betray." it was a cia agent during this

whole thing, and it gives insight into what the mindset is, and how brutal they are in suppressing any kind of protesting within around -- iran. and you saw it bubble up with the 2009 pre-election of ahmadinejad. but the focus was just so severe, and the fellow that is doing that is the minister of interior that is suppressing all of that. that is why you do not hear a lot of any of the protests within iran. >> thank you, colonel. i think you clarify that as we accelerate in the frustration with iran, as it might be with the -- with any country, the military in the u.s. are always

engaged in planning and preparation. it does not mean they are engaged in moving. i think of was the interpretation. but i noticed in your testimony that the saudis at one point had asked that the head of the snake should be cut off. my question to you on this issue of terrorism as it circulates around this horrific and horrendous potential assassination, we have the responsibility, i believe, that if we act in any way, one, it should be a collaborative, two, it to be based on facts. we should be very consistent with protecting the homeland. do you have a response on how you generate those three points that is something short of saying we're going to allegedly attack this sovereign nation that potentially house nuclear capacity? potentially house nuclear

capacity? >> thank you for the question. i think you have heard everyone on the panel described in one way or another that this will be a multilateral approach. it is all of these things in tandem of the same time, and a concerted effort over a short time frame -- it is all of these things in tandem. at the same time, a concerted effort over a short time frame is what is new. someone earlier after something about creating or promoting or undermining fissures within the regime and when you were asking about the arab spring, this came to mind. one of the things the treasury has decided to do is target sanctions and do so in ways that will promote the fissures in the

regime. that is why the administration can move with human rights executive orders. it is the quds force that is responsible for cracking down on a peaceful protest. it is the could force that is responsible for the missile program. -- the quds force that is responsible for the missile program. at the same time, it does send a message. we can target these to have multiple purposes, not only in terms of trying to shut down the next quds front that is trying to ship material, but also send messages to the iranian people that we're promoting their efforts at peaceful protest. that is really important. if you do all these things in tandem, you can send your message. we talked much, much earlier about messaging. you can promote security in the homeland. you can even disrupt their

activities abroad. i think you need to do all of these things. closing comments.ecognize >> i want to thank the panel. we have heard everything from a "bumbling and disarray" as well as "people and consistent." we have to come together with some appropriate response. i want to thank you for raising the red flag in looking for things that have not been seen or watched for before. and i want to thank you for raising the failure of the end of the 9/11 report. clearly, your study of this current moment allows us to anticipate and i hope we are able to respond in an appropriate fashion.

thank you for the work that you do, what you have done, and where you continue to do to help us protect the country. >> i would like gosh i want to say thank you for your presentation. i want to underscore the fact that many of you in further questioning recognize that military action, immediate military action is not what we should be looking at. but it is very clear that anything we do look at needs to be multilateral, that we are vigilant, needs to be heightened, and we need to do everything we can to nurture their spring that is percolating in the iran as well. i think you for your testimony. >> is getting late. >> can i posed a question on the record? >> you might not answer it, and

i appreciate that. but one of our difficulties for those that engaged with the iranian resistance in the united states and europe is that we need to delineate and declare whether this group can move forward in the non-terrorist label. they have been in limbo, they have been in the united states. there are asking this nation to address the question. this nation is about terrorist activities and i hope that we can get an answer from americans that are supporting the iranian resistance once and for all, including a response that i know you all are working with. >> let me thank the witnesses for being here today. it was compelling testimony that this assassination attempt

in washington was a sanction that the highest levels of the levels. -- highest levels of the iranian government. we need to respond effectively, and we have failed to do that since 1979. the takeaways, the national power, we treat it as a strategic enemy. we need to seize the financial assets, we need a cyber campaign against them. we need a more aggressive designations. we need the expulsion of operatives in this country. we need a significant covert action against iran. and we need to support this resistance movement within iran, this youthful secular movement to overthrow the ayatollah.

we're going to submit a letter to the president of the with the findings of this hearing, i would hope that the ranking members will also join us in that letter to the president. this has been a productive hearing. this hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up next on c-span, president obama announces proposals to ease the repayment of student loans.

and u.s. house debate over a land swap on federal land in arizona. and later, a house hearing investigated iran's covert operations and the plan to kill a diplomat in washington. on tomorrow's "washington journal" we will discuss the republican agenda. it begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. want every story to be 1800 words. >> last month, she became the first woman to hold the post of executive editor at the new york times. she believes the times's more irreplaceable than ever, but envisions a few changes. >> sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a story or

there are three " making the same point where one would do. i would like to see a variety of story lines. >> she will discuss her career, her new book, send a night. -- sunday night. it is time to get the cameras rolling for the student cam competition. did the video to c-span by january 20 and you can win the grand prize of $5,000. president obama today announced a plan to limit college loan repayment to 10% of a borrower's disposable income and to forgive student loans that are 20 years old. these will be achieved through an executive order and will not require action by congress.

the president made the announcement in the university of colorado at denver. this is half an hour. >> hello, denver. thank you. thank you. it is great to be back in colorado. and it is great to be here in denver. i tend to have some pretty good memories about denver.

we had a little gathering a few years ago. coming here and get me fired up even when it is snowing outside. i don't know where else you can go home sledding at halloween. what is up with the snow this soon? is this lake? it's late for denver? i want to start by thanking you for the wonderful introduction in sharing her story which i know resonates with a lot of young people here. i want to thank your outstanding governors here. there he is. the mayor of denver is in the

house. the lieutenant governor is in the house. and one of the finest public servants, that you were wise enough to elect and reelect is united states senator michael bennett. you guys do a good job when it comes to an elected officials from colorado. you have a good eye for talent. i love you back. i do. i have been doing a lot of traveling lately. the reason i have been hitting the road so much is because folks i am talking to in cities

and small towns, communities across america, and they are making more sense than the folks back in washington. here in colorado, you have folks that are spending months, years looking for work. you have families making tough sacrifices just to pay the bills. or the mortgage. for college tuition. americans know that we need to do isn't about id. i of this is especially hard for a lot of young people. you guys came of age at a time of profound change. globalization, technology, they have all made the world much more competitive. although this offers unmatched

opportunities, the way that the world has linked up means you could start a business that is global from your laptop. but it also means that we are going to have to adapt to these changes. and for decades, too many of our institutions from washington to wall street failed to adapt. or they adapt in ways that did not work for ordinary folks. for middle-class families, those aspiring to get into the middle class. we have an economy bella's based on consuming things and piling up debt and making things and creating value. we had a philosophy that said if we cut taxes for the very wealthy and we got environmental regulation and we don't enforce

labor regulation, somehow, will st. will write the rules, that will lead to prosperity. and instead, it culminated in the worst financial crisis and the deepest recession since the great depression. the last three years, we have worked to stabilize the economy and we have made some progress. a dichotomy is -- and that was trading is growing, but too slowly. it has been offset by layoffs, teachers, the public-sector. we still have a long way to go. as the young people are getting ready to head out into the world, and you're hearing stories from friends,

classmates, siblings that are struggling to find work in your wondering what is in store for your future. i know that can be scary. all right. thank you, guys. we're looking at it right now. no decision has been made and i know your deep concern about it. here is what i also know. i know that is true for folks that are concerned about the environment, folks that are concerned about foreign policy, and also folks that are concerned about the economy. when i looked out at all of you,

i feel confident because i know that as long as there are young people like you that still have hope and are still inspired by the possibilities of america, there will be better days for this country. i know that we will come through this stronger than before, and when i wake up every single morning, what i am thinking about is how we create in america in which you have opportunity, in which anybody can make it the matter what they look like, the matter where they come from, and the very fact that you are here investing in your education, the fact that you're going to college and making an investment in your future tells me that you share my faith in america's future.

you inspire me. your hopes, your dreams, your opportunities. the truth is, the economic problems we face today didn't happen overnight and they won't be solved overnight. the challenges we face of the environment or getting comprehensive the immigration reform done, on these issues, they will have to keep on pushing. it will take time to rebuild the economy that works for everybody at not just of those at the top. there are steps we can take right now to put americans back to work and to give the economy a boost. i know it, you know it, the american people know it. you have leaders that are

looking out for you. but the problem is that there are some in washington -- there are some in washington that don't share the sense of urgency. last week for the second time this month, republicans in the senate blocked a jobs bill from moving forward. this is a jobs bill that would have meant nearly 400,000 teachers and firefighters back on the job. it was the kind of proposal that in the past has gotten democratic and republican support. it was paid for by asking those who have done the best in our society, those that made the most to just do a little bit more. and it was supported by an

overwhelming majority of the american people. makesaid no, it doesn't sense. how can you say no to creating jobs when some of the people are looking for work. the truth is, the only way we can attack our economic challenges, the only way we can put hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people back to work is if congress is willing to cooperate with the executive branch and we are able to do some bold action. like passing the jobs bill. that is what we need. that is why i am going to keep vote -- forcing these senators to vote on common sense and jobs proposals. you don't need to tell michael bennett, he is on the page.

but i am going to need you guys to be out there calling into leading and all the stuff you do. listen, we are not going to wait for congress. last month when i addressed a joint session of congress about the jobs crisis, i said that i intend to do everything in my power right now to act on behalf of the american people with or without congress. [applause] we can't wait for congress to do its job. act, i will.n't that is rising in recent weeks we have taken executive actions. we decided we couldn't just wait for congress to fix no child left behind.

we went ahead and decided to give states the flexibility they need to meet higher standards and improve our schools. we said that we can't wait for congress to help small businesses, will go ahead and say to the federal government, a small businesses faster the that they can start hiring more people. we are not going to wait for congress to fix what is going on in the health care system, we eliminated regulation that will save hospitals and patience in billions of dollars. we announced a new initiative to make it easier for veterans to put their skills to work in hospitals. [applause] on monday, we announced the new policies that will help families whose home values have fallen to refinance mortgages and to save up to thousands of dollars a year.

halt these steps are not going to take the place of the needed action that congress has to get going on. the of got to create jobs and to grow the economy. these executive actions can make a difference. we're going to work every single day to figure out what we can do without congress. what can we do without it? [applause] steps that can save you money and make government more efficient and responsive. we're going to be announcing these steps on a regular basis and that is why i came to denver today. to do something that will be especially important to all of you here and the millions of former students all across america. i mentioned that we live in a global economy. where businesses can set up shop

anywhere where there is an internet connection. we live in a time where over the next decade, 60% of new jobs will require more than a high- school diploma. other countries are hustling to out educate us so that they can out educate -- and out compete us tomorrow. i want you to have those jobs. i want america to have those jobs. i want america to have the most highly skilled workers doing the most advanced work. i want us to win the future. that means they should be doing everything we can to put a college education within reach of every american. that has never been more important. has never, college been more expensive.

tuition is going up again on average. a much faster than inflation. much faster than wages and incomes. over the past three decades, the cost of college has nearly tripled. graduates that took out loans left college selling an average of $24,000. student loans has surpassed credit card debt and for the first time ever. living with that kind of that means making some pretty tough choices when your first starting out. it might mean that you can't start a business idea that you have got. it might mean that you wait longer to start a family or your

putting off saving for retirement because you are paying off student loans. when a chunk of every paycheck goes to student loans instead of other things, that is not just a tough for middle-class families, it is painful for the economy and harmful to recovery. because the money is not going to help businesses grow. this is something that we know about first hand. i have been in your shoes. we did not come from a wealthy family. i was raised mostly by a single mom and grandparents. michelle had sort of leave it to beaver perfect family -- [laughter] she did. they're wonderful. her dad was a blue-collar

worker, and her mom stayed home and when she did go to work, she worked as a secretary. our folks did not have a lot of money. we rented a host of the time when we were growing up. by the time we both graduated from law school, we had between us about $120,000 worth of debt. we combined and got port together. -- poor together. [laughter] we come by our liabilities, not our assets. so we were paying more for student loans than we paid on our mortgage each month. obviously, we were lucky to have gotten a great education, we were able to land good jobs, but

it took us almost 10 years to finally pay off our student debt. it wasn't easy, especially once we had malia and sasha. we were saving for their college while paying for hours. -- ours. how do we make college more affordable? how do we make sure you are burdened with less debt? keep in mind, college isn't just one of the best investment you can make in your future, is one of the best investments america can make in our future. we want you in school. [applause] but we should not saddle you with that when you're starting off. that is why since taking office, we have made it a priority. last year, we fought to

eliminate the taxpayer subsidies going to big banks. they were serving as middlemen in the student loan program. the loans were guaranteed by the federal government, we were still paying banks and billions of dollars to be passthroughs for the student loan program. that is not a good idea. of course, there were some in washington that opposed to me on this. that is surprising. shocking. [laughter] you had some republicans that fought us tooth and nail to protect the status quo and to keep the tax dollars flowing to big banks. one of them said that changing it would be an outrage. the real outrage was letting banks keep these subsidies while students are working three jobs just to try to get by.

that was the outrage. [applause] that is why we ended the practice once and for all, to put college in reach of more americans. at last year's state of the union address, i have congress passed a law that tells 1 million students they won't have to pay more than 10% of their income toward student loans, and we won that fight, too. that will take effect by the time -- that law is scheduled to take effect by the time freshmen graduate. let's see if we can do a little bit more. today, i am announcing that we are going to speed things up. [applause] we are going to make these changes work for students who are in college right now. we're going to put them into effect not three years from now

or two years from now, we're going to put them into effect next year. our economy needs it right now, and your future could use a boost right now. this is what this will mean. because of this change, 1.6 million americans could see their payments go down by hundreds of dollars a month. and that includes some of the students that are here today. ist we're also going to do take steps to consolidate student loans so that instead of paying multiple payments to multiple lenders, and i remember this. i remember riding of five different checks to five different loan agencies. and if you lost one that month, you could not get all the bills together and you missed a payment, then you were paying a penalty. will make it easier for you to

have one payment a month at a better interest rates. it will cost taxpayers nothing and will save you money and time. we want to start giving students is an -- a simple fact shee. t. know before you owe. so you have the information you need to make decisions about how to pay for college. i wish we had that when we were in your shoes. these changes will make a difference for millions of americans. it will save you money and help more young people figured out how to afford college. it will put more money in your pocket when you graduate. and because you know it is only a certain percentage of then come, that means you will be

more confident and comfortable to buy a house, save for retirement, and it will give our economy a boost when it desperately needs its. this is not just important to our country right now, it is important to our country's future. we think about how we are only where we are because somewhere down the line, somebody decided that we're going to give everybody a chance. it doesn't matter if you are not born wealthy, it doesn't matter if your dad is disabled or doesn't own his own home. are asn't matter if you single mom. you are still going to get an education. this country gave us a chance. and because of our parents and

their generation of work and sacrifice, they passed on opportunity to us. this is something that we as a country did together. the dream of opportunity is what i want for you and i want for my daughter's and i want them for your children. i want them for all young people. no matter how tough times are, we are going to make the dream that all americans share a real once again. it starts right now. it starts with you. i am going to keep doing everything in my power to make a difference for the american people. denver, i need your help. some of these folks are not getting the message. i need your voices heard and i

need the young people involved and active. i need you communicating to congress. get the word out. to lead them. they are treating all over the place. whatever works for you. tell them, do your job. tell them that the president has ideas and that in the past have been supported by democrats and republicans. there is no reason not to support them just to play politics. it is time to put country ahead of party. it is time to put the next generation ahead of the next election. it is time for all of us to do our job. to many people out there are hurting. to many people are hurting for us to sit around and do nothing. we are not people that sit around and wait for things to

happen, we are americans. we make things happen. we don't hold back and we don't quit. that is the spirit we need right now. denver, let's meet the moment and do the right tang. let's go show the world not just why is that the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. thank you. [applause] ♪

>> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will discuss the republican agenda. and we will talk about the foreclosure crisis. washington journal begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> and this weekend in knots of

tennessee, but tv and american history tv. on c-span2, the body farm is four acres of decomposing human remains. also a look at roots author alex haley. he fell in love with the city during a 1982 visit. a visit to the birthplace museum. an indian silversmith successfully created a system of writing for the cherokee language. the natural laboratory historian on the development of the atomic bomb. and is not to go a true southern city? saturday at 11:00 a.m..

watched throughout the weekend on but tv and american history sheehy in knoxville, tennessee. >> although the headline proved defeat by harry truman changed political history. a dominant force in new york state politics and influence in national politics in the elections of like eisenhower. the contenders, from the roosevelt hotel in new york city. today, the house voted to approve an exchange of federal land in arizona that would create the largest copper mine in north america. that gives 2,800 acres to rio tinto in exchange for environmentally sensitive land. here is some of the house debate on the bill. this is just over an hour.

s. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wasngton. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, our nation has suffered through 32 consecutive months of over 8% unemployment and people everywhere across our great nation continue to ask, where are the jobs? congress' top priority right now is job creation and today we have an opportunity to act on that commitment by passing a bill that would put thousands of americans to wo. the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act sponsored by our colleague from arizona, mr. gosar, is a commonsense measure that will create new american jobs and strengthen our economy through increased u.s. mineral production. thebill authozes an equal value land exchange between resolution copper, the federal government, the state of arizona and the town of superior,

arizona, that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper source in the world. the bill requires the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers and for the government. this project will provide substantial benefits to the united stas in the form of job creation, economic growth and increased national security. this mining project will support nearly 3,700 jobs. these are good paying american wage jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages. at a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-immediated -- much-needed boost through private investments. this mining activity will have over $60 billion in economic impactnd will generate $20 billion in total federal, state, county and local tax revenue.

so this bill, mr. chairman, is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harvesting our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track. the importance of u.s. copper production cannot be overstated. our nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources. placing our economic competitiveness and national security a risk. the u.s. currently imports 30% of the copper we need and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources and the vast resources indeed we have in this country. the copper produced from this single project, from this single project, will meet 25% of the united states' entire copper demand. the copper could be used for a variety of projects, nging from hybrid cars, like the prius, to medical devices, plumbing and computers.

without it the microphones and lights that we're using here right now would not be functioning. it's also essential for national security -- defense equipment and technology. it is used in satellites, space and aviation, weapons guidance and communications. the benefits and the reasons to pass this bill, mr. chairman, are plentyful. however, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those across the ale who are opposed to mining in america. i would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning. first, the bill follows the standard federal land appraisal process, procedures issued by the departme of justice which has been used in this country for decades. the appraisal requires full market value to be paid for by both the land and minerals within. if by chance there is copper production beyond, beyond, mr. chairman, thappraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay e united

states the difference. which would be assessed on an annualasis. this is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return on their copper resources. second, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 american jobs. it's not about helping foreign mining interests as some have charged. opposing this mine and not producing copper in the u.s. is what truly benefits foreign nations by sending american jobs overseas. and making it increasingly reliant on foreign resources of critical minerals. third, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. this bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. especially in areas to be conveyed currently under private ownership. fourth, the developer has already secured over half the water needed for this project

and has committed to having 100% of the water it needs in hand before construction begins. claims that the project will require the same amount of used by the city of tempe is, mr. chairman, a gross exaggeration. finally this bill es not trade away sacred sites. as previously stated, the bill requires tribal concentration and there is a map that will be shown later on today that talks about the copper triangle in this part of arizona and you'll see that on this map, which will be shown later, this mine is right in the middle of that copper triangle. h.r. 1904 is about creating new american jobs, strenhening our economy and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. the bill has broad support both locally and nationally, including arizona governor, the arizona chamber of commerce, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of

manufacturing and the national mining association. they all, mr. chairman, recognize the job-creating benefits of this bill. so i urge my colleagues to strongly support h.r. 1904, to put amicans back to work on american jobs and utilizing e vast resources in this country that we should be using for economic and for national security reasons. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. h.r. 1904 is a triple threat. it will rob native people of their heritage, it will rob local people of their water and it will rob the american people of their money. this legislation is simply an abdication of our responsibilities as steward of public lands and the public trufert.

and must beejected. the congress routinely considers land exchanges. it is our responsibility to weigh the merits of each proposal to determine whether it is in the best interest of the american people. some proposals facilitate public recreation, some help local communities build courthouse and schools and -- courthouses and schools and some serve important envinmental goals. the land exchange required by 1904 serves none of those purposes. rather this legislation will take thousands of acres of healthy, protected, sacred public land and convert it into billions of dollars in corporate profits for two foreign mining companies. h.r. 1904 trades away several sites that are sacred to native people. the hearing record before the natural resources committee includes desperate pleas from apache, white mountain apache, tonto apache, other apaches and

the pueblo and others pleading to respect the religious and cultural traditions. instead the bill waives compliance with nepa, the native american protection act and the historic preservation act and all other statutes that might give the tribes voice and respect at the table before this decision is finalized. . the time insult comes when the bill requires consultation with native people after the land exchange. after that exchange has already occurred. this will not be government to government consultation as required by the treaty trust relationship, rather it continues a pattern of neglect and belittles native people once again. the legislation also threatens to take a drown prone area turning it into a desert. according to testimony received by the committeea mining operation like the one planned

by resolution copper requires an estimated 40,000 acre-feet o water per year. this is roughly the amount of water used by the entire city of tempe in arizona. the temperature does not own any water rights, has failed to indicate where the water for the mining operation will come from. historically mining companies have simply sunk their wells deeper than their neighbors and taken watethat they need. a federal mining permit process along with compliance with nepa and other laws might mitigate or at least explore these concerns, but the legislation allows resolution copper to skip these steps leaving the people of southeastern arizona in grave danger of severe water shortages. nepa happens after the land train is finalized. the parent company of resolution copp holds all the cards. compliance with nepa becomes unclear and poses leg issues regarding private property. finally, the legislation will

allow the parent company of resolution copper to realize billions in profits without guaranteeing a fair return to the current owners of the land, the american people. the bill contains appraisal and paymt provisions, but the language is nonstandard and in some cases totally unique. why are such provisions necessary when a simple straightforward royalty would provide a fair and predictable return to the taxpayers? at a time when we are told that everybody from college students to the elderly must accept drastic cuts to basic federal programs, it is unconscionable that we would approve a massive transfer much wealth from the american people to a foreigowned mining company without insisting on a fair return. supportive of this legislation -- supporters claim it would create jobs. job creation has been the excuse used here on the house floor to push legislation dismantling the last century of environmental protection and h.r. 1904

continues that pattern. the job creation claims are based on predictions provided by industry and the comnies which stand to profit from this deal witht a mining plan to verify or corroborate any of the information. thus they are all highly suspect. when the proposal was first developed 2005, the arizona public andhe tucson citizen reported the mine would create 450 jobs. without explanation these predictions have skyrocketed over the years to 1,200, 3,700 toda and 6,000 jobs as well have been brought up as numbers of jobs that would be created. none of these numbers are supported by facts. the trend in mining over the last several decades is clear, mining companies are producin more and more and using fewer and fewer workers. rio tinto are pioneers in the

use of auto mation and the resolution copper project is an opportunity to perfect these technologies. ev further, the number of jobs actually created by h.r. 1904 will pale in comparleson to the economic and environmental devastation that it could cause. mr. chairman, this is a special interest legislation that is not in the interest of the american people. this legislation asks congress to be business agents for foreign ownecorporations and not stewards of the public land or represent the american taxpayer. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, the sponsor of this bill, somebody who has been absolutely tenacious in seeing that this legislation advances to where it is today, so i yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from

arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i rise today in support of my legislation, h.r. 1904, the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act. mr. gosar: legislation that will create american jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals, protect high profile conservation lands, and generate revenue for federal and state treasuries. in this time of serious economic hardship, congress must engage in serious debate over serious issues. what should not guide congress is an endless game of unfounded attacks that leads to trumped up fear amongoring to gain political advantage, particularly in this case the fear of robots. this legislation is a real job creator. i would like to tell a story about chris astore. a current employee at the mine site and a member of the an carlos apache tribe.

chris grew up attending public schools on the reservation and graduated from high school in nearby globe. in 2010 chris was among those first in the first group of the resolution experience participants, a paid three-week program resolution launched in the summer of 2010 to introduce potential employees to the world of mining. each participant receives a mine and safety health administrative certified training, then is exposed to t various wor disciplines within resolution copper. following this three-week program, many of the program participants are hired by the company or as contractors. among e hired employees was chris astore. chris is one of seven apaches who have been hired by resolution copper or its contractor since the program began in the summer of 2010. chris now works as a core handler, one of the seven-member crew that retrieves drill core samples from the rigs that do the project. i have had t blessing of dng this in my own life for my dad.

under the guidance of geologists, the core handls log, process, and archive core samples with geologists and mine engineers, helping them to rely and understand the nature of the ore body. i would like to eventually try different jobs, get a broader view, learn, and grow into a supervisory role, chris says. i also want to be trained to work underground. prior to the resolution experience, chris worked at the pinto valley copper mine an open pit mine a few miles northeast of the project which is owned b.h.p. however this mine is currently closed. before joining resolution's experience, chris had been out of work for more than a year. chris is now a 31-year-old father of three children, ages 13, 9, and 5. with his stable good paying job including great medical benefits, chris is able to confidently support his family. i can take care of my kids better and provide what they need and sometimes even what

they want, he says. life was not always good for chris. he grew up as an only child, raisedy his mother and grandparents. he spent most of his childhood on the reservation. he went where my mom coul find work, he says. he never knew my dad. chris feels fortunate to have a job and to live on the reservation where more than 80% of the residents live in poverty and 7 out of 10 eligible workers are unemployed. it is true that modern mining technology uses high-tech equipment to accomplish certain tasks. this is done for efficiency sake and the sake of the worker. mining is a potentially hazardous task and certainly a difficult e that must be done with precision. chris is not a robot. you can still see there's a need for people to run the min to drive the trucks, to feed the workers, to drill the holes, to engineer the dig, build the structures, process the minerals, and, yes, ild,

maintain, and control technology. chris is a real human being operating this technology already aids the site. if we pass this legislation, over 3,700 more success stories like chris' will come to fruition. i urge my colleagues to continue this debate with serious discussions about the facts about this bill not scare tactics. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from arizona, my colleague, mr. pastor. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: want to thank mr. grijalva for the courtesy. mr. chairman, unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, this is an issue that i have been working on for probably the last 10 years. and one of the interests that i ve on this issue is i was born

and grew up in this copper triangle that we are talking about today. it's a beautiful area and at one time copper was the industry for this copper triangle and over the past 20, 25 years obously many of the mines shut down and the copper production stopped in arizona. and so i have to tell you that my interest in this land exchange and -- would be the possible economic rise of this area. i traveled through this area because my mom still lives up in miami, arizona, where i was born and raised. and i traveled regularly at least once a month through these canyons and i could tell you that it's the most beautiful site, about 85 miles east of phoenix, where you can still see

fine, pristine environment with some of the spectacular rock formation that you'll ever see in this country. so it's very beautiful. but also it's an area that's hit some hard times. i grew up in a mining town so i know what a mining town is. during the summers while i was attending arizona state university, i would go work in the mines. so i worked in the leeching plant, the electroplant, the leeching tanks, ball mills, so i have the experience of knowing this type of life. so inow the economic boom that copper mining can bring to a community, but i also have experience the impact, the adverse impact that copper mining can have not only on the people that work in there, but also on the environnt.

so i have seen both sides. it's with that interest that i have seen the evolution of this debate, at one time even i sponsored a bill that would deal with the economic development of these mining towns, superior, globe miami, etc., and the area we are talking about being exchanged is an areahat i kn well. as a kid growing up we used this area for picnic site and in some cases probably the site where we didn't go to school, that's where we had our impromptu picnic. so i know this area. i have to tell you that the issue about the jobs as it will be discussed, and i guess the number of jobs is in the eyes of the beholder, mining has changed. and i know that it's a different

type of mining than the one i experienced, and so we can debate on the mum of jobs. -- number of jobs. but i will tell you that this will be -- this will bring some economic development to these areas of the copper triangle. that i cannot deny. but the issue for me is at what price? at what price do we bring this economic development without some protection to the environment, without some protection to the employee rights, but more, what do we do ensure that the american public who owns this property -- and there is no debate that this ore , deposit is some of the richest ore bodies, copper, gold, silver , and other rare metals will be

mined here. it's one of the richest deposits of ore not only in north america but probably in this world. and that's why resolution copper has maintained nine years, 10 years of trying to get this bill done, because they know how rich this is. so at what price do we pay for this economic boom? well, mr. chairman, i would tell you that one of the differences that i have with the sponsor of this bill, and i have to thank him because representative go czar reached out veriey -- gosar reached out very early and we talked about this particular bill, and he has improved the bill i sponsored, but i feel that he has not gone far enough. so this bill would be highly improved if the amendment offered today that gives an 8% on the extraction of the ore would beair to the american public.

and so if that amendment is adopted, obviously it will be very difficult to oppose this bill. but if the amendment is not adopted, then, mr. chairman, i would tell you that the american public is paying a high price for the economic development of the copper triangle and the only enrichment will be for those copper companies that are of foreign extraction. so, mr. chairman, i thank you for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to another gentleman from arizona, mr. quail, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. quayle: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1904. the bill authored by my good

friend a fellow arizonan, congressman gosar, that will create thousands of jobs in arizona. i want to commend chairman hastings for thinks work on this and bringing this to the floor today. what we see right now is a jobs crisis that we have in america. and we need to be able to unleash the ienuity of our job creators. and we also have to make sure that we're not putting up barriers for people to actually start companies, expand companies and hire new workers. h.r. 1904 have will have broad economic impacts not only for arizona but for the country as a whole. because it will create 3,700 jobs equaling nearly $220.5 million in annual wages. these are go, high-paying jobs right here in america. and it will also generate nearly $20 billion in federal, state, county and local tax revenue. this is a win-win. not only is this legislation completely paid for, but it also

ensures that mining is done in a responsible manner. because h.r. 1904 requires full compliance with nepa and also requires tribal consultation prior to mine construction. now, mr. chairman, copper is a vital mineral that we have in the united states and across the world. it's going to continue to be vital. because it's a critical mineral that was widely used in construction, telecommunications, electricity and transportation. copper's also extremely conductive. which makes it very important in power generation, in utility transmission. our actual desire and demand for copper is just going to continue to go up. and that's why we've actually started to import close to 30% of our copper from a foreign -- from foreign countries. if we opened up this mine and allowed this land swap to happen, this project alone could provide us with enough copper to meet 25% of current u.s. demand. by taking advantage of the american sources of copper, we can prevent supply disruxes and

-- disruptions and decrease our dependence on foreign imports but most importantly, mr. chairman, this bill creates thousands of american jobs in a responsible mner at no cost to the taxpayer. i urge my colleagues to support this biland i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. there is a cost to the taxpayer, mr. speaker. the fact that this very valuable extraction in mineral is being extracted without any royalties, without any payment. i would consider that a cost to the american taxpayer. and the issue about nepa is not semantics. neep and other environmental -- nepa and other environmental profits should occur before the land trade, not after. after the land trade it will be very difficult for compliance to happen, as a consequence now that this land will be in the hands of a foreign-owned company, it will be private property. with that let me yield to -- as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of natural

resources committee, the gentleman, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from arizona. mr. chairman, the new deal was a jobs plan. president obama has put forward a jobs plan. h.r. 1904 is not a jobs plan. h.r. 1904 is a massive payout to multinational mining giants wearing a jobs plan as a disguise. and that disguise is slipping. real jobs are about making wise investments in businses and technologies that put americans to work. this bill just gives billions of

dollars in copper to foreign mining companies for free. so let's do the math. estimates vary on the value of the copper. from $2 billion to $7 billion or $8 billion. so let's just split the difference down the middle and say that the copper might be worth $5 billion. the jobs claims for this bill vary wildly as well from 500 to 5,000 jobs. now, there's a good reason to believe the jobs numbers will be on the very low end, but let's be optimistic and take the highest jobs claim possible, so supporters of this bill are going to give away $5 billion in hopes of creating 5,000 jobs. well, that's $1 million per job,

mr. chairman. $1 million not paid necessarily to theorkers themselves, but paid to foreign mining giants. now, is that the kind of wise investment that we need? i do not think so. i think that we need some new jobs, but they should be real jobs, they should be here. much of the work that's going to be done in this mining is going to be done by robots. so there will be full employment for our -- for r-2-d-2 and for the transformers but the total number of jobs here, very speculative and very expensive per job created. that's thereal question here. because i think many human beings are just going to remain unemployment -- unemployed under this plan and since it's a multinational that gets the benefits, there will be plenty of accountants and lawyers in london and melbourne, all around the world, that will be

employed, but in america, not so many. and those that are there, very expensive. especially since the per capita cost is very, very high. now, why do we know that? well, we know it because rio tinto and b.p.h. stand to pocket an enormous amount of money. billions of dollars off of this deal. so if you count the food service workers and the executive dining rooms of these companies, well, you can see where there will be some jobs that are created. if you're adding it up that way. but, the truth is this is a windfall, a windfall, which is why i am going to make an amendment to charge a reasonable royalty for the privilege of mining this copper on public lands in the united states. and when the -- when the majority votes no on that, when the republicans say, no, we

don't want to -- a royalty payment that can actually be collected by the american people, we'll see what the real aim of this is, which is to privatize this resource for multinational corporations without giving the full benefit to the american taxpayer for the copper which is mined and mr. grijalva and mr. gamendi will offer anmendment to require local hiring and local ore processing and make it in america, make it here, and have americans working here, doing this work. people from arizona itself. that's the real debate that we're going to have. and in conclusion, mr. lujan as well will offean amendment to protect native american sacred sites from being destroyed by this bill. and when that is defeated as well by the majority it will be painfully clear just how fa they are willing to go to enrich

these foreign corporaons. this should not be a filings basement sale, this should not be a fire sale, giving away american valuable copper resources to multinationals, we should be able to put a price tag on what the american people are getting from this bargain basement sale, this giveaway, without proper compensation given to the american taxpayer. that's what this bill and the debate is going to be all about. it's whether or not in fact there is corporate profit earring at taxpayer -- profit at taxpayer expense which is at the heart of this bill. history are record that when the public cried out for a jobs plan to put americans back to work, that what was put together was a retirement plan for executives at rio tinto and b.p.h. that did not in fact -- b.h.p. that did

not in fact get a return for american taxpayers. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another gentleman from arizona, somebody else who has been involved in this issue for some time, mr. franks, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: i certainly thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. mr. chairman, let me first just congratulate mr. gosar on the introduction and passage of this legislation. he has done an amazing job in helping this legislation get to where it is now and i have every confidence that he will see it through to the end. mr. chairman, according to united states glogical survey reports, the united states currently imports over 30% of the country's copper demand. and in 2010 alone domestic copper production decreased b another 5%. it decreased by another 5%. and just as relying on foreign oil imports threatens national security, relying on foreign copper suppliers also threatens

u.s. industry. we mususe domestic resources to meet that growing demand and this legislation is a major step in theight direction. producing enough copper to meet as much as 25% of america's current demand. the southeast arizona land exchange and conrvation act would open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, mr. chairman. it would create new american jobs, reduce our dependent on -- dependence on foreign sources of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of minerals and generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue. now, in the midst of a prolonged recession, mr. chairman, that has hit arizona very hard, we really cannot afford not to pass this legislation because it so uniformly benefits our labor force, ourtate and local governments and conservationists who would benefit from the much of the high value land exchange in opening this land to mining. i would just encourage my

colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. it's time that america begin to produce our own energy and our own minerals and to get back on track of being the greatest nation in the history of the world and i would yield back and thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the claim is that this legislation's going to boost the u.s. economy tremendously. but the copper will likely benefit china more than the united states. 9% of rio tinto is owned by the state-controlled aluminum corpation of china. rio tintto has a long established relationship. they refused to disclaim what level of exportation they were going to make to china of this copper-ore. at a time when we should focus on u.s. industry, on supporting that industry, creang jobs here in america, we should not be trading away billions in copper to supply china's needs. this bill doesn't require -- doesn't even require the ore extracted from this mine ll be processed here. much less that it will be marketed or sold here.

with that let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the resource committee, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. grijalva, thank you very much. let me just fell you, my family's been in -- tell you, my family's been in mining since the 1860's, gold mining which isn't working too well in california right now and i'm not at all opposed to mining copper in arizona although there are issues local to be dealt with and let that go to another individual. i was deputy secretary at the department of interior and had the turent to deal with the appraisals and land transfers. this bill as structured is a bad deal for american taxpayers and for americans. it basically is an enormous giveaway of extraordinary value to these two companies. as has been mentioned by our colleagues from arizona who are in support of the bill, this is one of the biggest deposits of copper and other minerals in the united states and quite possibly

among the biggest in the world. what is its value? the mechanisms that's used to determinehe value of the trade isalled a capitalization apaisal. which has to assume that -- has to assume the cost, s to make assumptions on the extraction, the cost of extraction, and the value -- a the amount of ore to be obtained. the is no way in the appraisal process that that can be done with any accuracy at all. and in the language of the bill, there are certain provisions that make it impossible for the united states government to go back and do a reappraisal. so, we're left with a bad financial deal. also the copper mining has to be done properly with environmental reviews and all. that that's not the issue for me. the issue for me is, let's make sure the american public gets the right value out of this and there's only one way to do it. and that is, as the ore is

extracted, it then has a known quantity and a known value and a royalty on the ore extracted, that is the material, copper, gold, and other materials is then known and if you simply put a royalty on that, then the american public will get its fair sha of its property. this property doesn't belong to rio tinto or b.h.p., it belongs to us, americans. may i have another 0 seconds, mr. grijalva? -- 30 seconds, mr. grijalva? it belongs to us as americans and we ought to be getting our full value. this is not an obscure or new provision. this is the standard procedure, we used it for oil extraction, except in deepwater. it's something that really will give us the value. secondly, and i'll make this very, very short, is that the equipment used ought to be american-made. there are going to be a lot of equipment, a lot of different equipment and materials used, let's make that american-made. that's an amendment that will come later. but right now deal with the royalty issue so that us

americans, all of us, 300 million, will get our share of the extraordinary value that this mine will produce. with that i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the natural resources committee and a gentleman whose district has long mining history, the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i came to the floor to speak in favor of this bill because, frankly, i find it hard to believe what i'm hearing from those arguing against it. does anyone honestly believe that passing this bill will create jobs only for an army of robots? are you kidding me? robots? according to one study this bill may create as many as 3,000 real jobs, for humans.

mr. speaker, my district in northern michigan is a long way from arizona, we, too, have a long rich history of copper mining. today people need copper in their daily lives. the growing demand means we need more mines. creating more jobs. in azona and michigan. my own father was a miner. congress needs to demonstrate that the american people -- to the american people that it supports mining jobs in developing our nation's resources, as this bill does in a way that's both environmentally responsible and culturally respectful. i urge the passage of this bill and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: could i inquire how much timeach side has? the chair: the gentleman has 8 minutes and the gentleman from washington has 13 1/2. mr. grijalva: if i may yield three minutes to the gentleman

from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i'm afraid that this bill is another example of the majority having no real jobs agenda. the republicans are claiming that this bill will create jobs in arizona, and of course our whole country wants more js anywhere we can get them, but the truth is that no one really knows the exact economic impact of this mine. the only job numbers that we have to go on are those provided by rio tinto, a foreign parent company of resolution copper. when this proposal was first developed in 2005, it was propertied that thmine would create about 450 jobs. without any explanation, no data, no analysis, very little, the estimates have skyrocketed to over 1,200 jobs or even 6,000 jobs. that sounds enticing, particularly to a country where we have 10%, 9% unemployment. but without any data to support

it, it just seems like speculation. you could just say it's going to create a gazillion bs. why not? anything to get the deal. there's no way to know because the numbers are not supported by a mining plan of operations or an impartial economic documentation of any kind. this bill is an affront to the national environmental policy act under this legislation by the time any environmental review or accurate job figures are available, the land will already be in private hands. in fact, there is no job requirement in the bill. there is no job requirement in the bill despite the vaunted promises of 6,000, 11 million jobs. this bill doesn't include any local jobs requirement from the mining company. at a time when the whole country is looking to congress to cate much needed jobs, and we really are vulnerable to any promises of jobs, our colleagues across the aisle should be really

focusing on creating jobs in america not just large vaunted promises that really have no background or substantiation. our colleagues across the aisle are spending the time in this house to create a specia interest carve out for a giant multinational corporation. this, by the way, owned by people outside the united states. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another gentleman who has been a long time supporter of this project, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank t gentleman for yielding. listening to the debate you wonder what bill we are debating here. the opposition seems to be talking about something completely, completely different. we have heard under the rule debate yesterday and some of the debate today that this won't create any jobs in arizona. that somehow these jobs will go to robots. come on, this isn't the jetsons

doing this. i have no idea what's being talked about here. let me just give you a couple of examples of those who are employed currently. there are 500 people currently employed by resolution on the mine. 500. 90% of them are arizonans. 90% of the 500 right now. th are estimated 1,400 jobs directly related to the mine or directly in the mine, and some 3,700 beyond that. ancillary jobs that come as a result of it. guzman, a local superior trading contractor, he had several local employees working for him on this project. that's a person, not a robot. jeb doneland, a globe based contractor whose company is doing much of the reclamation work on the project. elizabeth, she's a long-time resident. she was actually born in the hospital that was run by the company on the previous mine that her father worked on. that company hospital now serves

as project's headquarters. two of her so work for a resolution contractor. mike alvarez, third generation from superior, works with a map technician. these are all real people. not robots. you didn't hear me say c3po or anybodlike that. so the arguments we hear coming out of the opposition on this are just complete complete nonsense. about this not creating jobs. talk about royalties. if we want to go in and change the mining act of 1872, let's do it. i'll be there. a lot of us have argued for that, but this is not the place to address the mining act of 1872. let's address that when it should be addressed and let's address the facts at hd. and the facts are these, jobs will be created. this is a great bill. let's pass it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank my friend, mr. flake. you're right. this isn't the jetsons doing this. i'd probably feel more comfortable if that was the case, but given the time we have left i'll reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, how much time on both sides? the chair: 11 1/2 and six. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have another speaker coming to the floor so i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, we have heard some curious arguments on the other side as my colleagues on this side have pointed out a few times, but let me just talk about a couple of them where there is a charge that this will cost the taxpayers. we measure what the costs a to the taxpayers of th country by

the congressional budget office c.b.o., the congressional budget office in looking at the land exchange aspect of this and the other costs associated, have concluded that the costs to the taxpayer is effectively zero. now, that's official agency that we go by. so when we hear that there are a whole bunch of costs associated with that to the taxpayer, that's simply not so. but what is even more ironic, mr. chairman, when they make that argument, they ignore the fact that jobs that will be created here get paid wages. those wages then will be subjected to tax policies of our federal government. to where the federal government actually gets more revenue. but that is ignored, it seems like, all the time when we hear the other side argue on this issue. let me talk about the issue of nepa because that has been

bandied around a few times. the nepa laws of our country are not changed at all. by the passage of this bill. but what we do is we put logic to the process. mr. chairman, as you know very well, our great government was decided -- was designed to have a disperfection of power. we sit in the legislative branch and we make the policy of this country and the executive branch carries out that policy. it's been that way since our republic was founded. all we are saying is that when congress directs an action in this case an action of a land exchange, it shall not be subject to nepa because we are exercising our authority in the constitution to direct policy. why should a nepa policy be used

to slow down direction that congress has given? so that's the only part of the nepa policy that will we are affecting in this bill. now i want to say this very explicitly. under this bill all nepa laws as to the cstruction and the carrng on of this mine will be subject to deepa laws and nothing has changed. nothing has changed. so when people throw out nepa, when people throw around nepa as something -- one reason whye shouldn't adopt this, that is simply a bogus argument. finally i just want to make one more point here about this being a give away. in fact, there are some of my persuasion that may have a bit of heartburn with this because the matter of fact we are giving the federal government more land

than we are exchanging for private development of this copper land. mr. chairman, i know you have heard the arguments over there and the time and i have been here and yet this is something i thinis worthy of support because we do want to make sure that those lands are protected in a way. so to suggest that there is a give away here is simply not the case because the exchange is of equal value. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield to a former member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from new mexico, three nutes. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding. every day in my district in new mexico people ask what's gone wrong with the american economy?

what's gone wrong with the american economy is that the federal government spends $3.6 trillion a year and it brings in $2.1 trillion a year. so they ask then why are the revenues to the government down? i say because jobs are down. and they want to know why jobs are down? and i can point to the resistance of this bill and explain why jobs are down. this is a very commonsense bill. itays we are going to take land, almost twice as much land and exchange it to a private company, we'll give them half as much land and let them have a copper mine there. and the americans are currently importing about 32% of all the copper that we use. this one mine, if the resistence were dropped and were put into operation, would provide 25% of the domestic copper demand for the next 50 years. why would we be contesting this? i have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle say it's

because there are robots working in the mine. the mines i go into, and i will guarantee you this mine will be conducted with engineers, with mechanics, it's going to be conducted with blue collar laborers down the holeorking in the mine. they've got better machinery than they did 100 years ago. they are not there working with pick and shovel. but these are real jobs, 1,200 to 1,500 jobs long term, 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs. it's a $4 billion increase in our economy. and we can't get agreement. this town which talks so much about jobs on both sides of the aisle and we hear the president moving around the country, i haven't heard the president once come out and say at least free up these 1,200 jobs. i will sign this jobs package. instead he nts to raise taxes to increase jobs. that's his idea. this is a private investment in a private land where they create a lot of long-term jobs.

more than this they are self-sufficient. the price of copper is almost four times what itas 10 years ago. the most recent report is that people are stealing copper bells off of churches and going in and cutting them up and selling them. copper is in that great a demand and we still find resistence from our friends on the other side of the aisle for creating these jobs and no one seems to understand and the american public why. what is this about? . it's about agenda politics. we are not going to let any resources go in the west. the west had its timber jobs choked off, mining jobs choked off, it had resistance to the oil and gas jobs. they are trying to shut that down. the west is starving for jobs. in fact, we in the western caucus have recently put out a report highlighting al of the many ways we can create jobs now.

the jo frontier, would recommend people go to it. this is onof the bills in the jobs frontier. i hardly recommend we pass h.r. 1904 and yield back. the air: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. as i indicated, much of the opposition coming from indian country to this legislation. all pueblos, including six in -- all the pueblos in new mexico have opposed this legislation. all the intertribal council of arizona is opposed to this legislation. 26 tribes from across the country, including texas, have opposed this legislation. they see an impact on sacred sites, history, culture that s not been factored into this discussion nor have native people's, particularly those affected nearby san carlos,

apache been allowed to run what is important which is the government-to-government consultation. just to point, the chaman, my friend of the natural resources committee mentioned c.b.o. score for this bill. there are also two points to make. c.b.o. says this bill could cost the taxpayers up to $5 billion over 10 years. this cost is not offset. c.b.o. says the payments to government could be significant but the bill's provisions don't allow c.b.o. to score them accurately. a straight royalty for sure would have certainty and would return what we -- was needed and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. before i yield to another gentleman from arizona, i just responded, c.b.o. said in their scoring which is so insignificant it's hard to measure. with that, mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. chairman, this is where i ran out of the financial services committee because it's important to be a arizonan. i spend a lot of time in this part of the state. much of the communities have devastating unemployment. and they are literally furious with washington, d.c., for destroying their timber jobs and squeezing their mining jobs and then we stand here with something that for little state like arizona -- for a little ate like arizona could be billions and billions of dollars of economic growth. when you think about this one ore deposit could represent 20% of the nation's copper, you know, how can we even be debating this. when you also realize, an average singlefamily home uses about 440 pounds of copper. how about a car? a car uses about 55 pounds of

copper. this is where it will come from. and the last thing i want to say, and to my good friend, congressman gosar from northern arizona, and all tee -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. schweikert: he's gigantic here. as a freshman to step into this body to deal with sometimes a can tank russ issue but -- cantankerous issue buthose who love arizona, this spornt. this is a lot of jobs. this is a lot of economic growth. and congressman gosar gets a lot of credit for getting it this far. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: can i inquire how much time has on each side? the chair: we are at five and three. mr. grijalva: i'm going to be prepared to close, but i'll reserve the balancof my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. . hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the sponsor

of this legislation, again, somedy who has been absolutely tenacious on this issue, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. my legislation shows you can protect the land and water and have a good economy with jobs. the land exchge that will brg into federal stewardship 5,500 acres of high-prix or the conservation lands in exchange for the largest copper area in the world. i'd like to speak about one. the 7-b ranch located in pinal county, arizona, is 3,073cres dedicated as one of the last great places on earth and the forest service testified that this property was priceless. you get a chance to see some of it. this area is home to a free-flowing arteeshan wetteland populated by leopard frogs, nesting birds and native fish. this par sell is recognized as an important bird area. these are amazing sites.

these are priceless. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me just talk about the opposition and it is not only with affection for the state that i grew up with and i was born in but it's also for the future of that state and it's also for the future of important rules and laws that have protected our environment for many years to assure that the jobs we're talking about are not just a nacea and a selling point as opposed to a reality. the opposition to this copper land exchange bill is based on many factors but let me just point out two. this is the fourth version of the land exchange. it began with former colleague

ramsey. en, mr. pastor, mrs. kirkpatrick and now my friend, mr. gosar from arizona. they are not the same, none of those. and the one major difference is that with the exception of the legislation before us, the nepa procs, the consultation all occurred before the land exchange, not after. once we dthat process, something comes up that needs compliance and mitigation. it becomes subject to the private property owner, a foreign company that will now have this public land, to deal with that question, as serious compliance iues and leg issues. the other point is the water. the 12 years have already been done of the 20 that the mine needs to be operated.

other important areas in the water supply for the region that seems like a significant number. but to bank, to bank water for this project on the outskirts of phoenix does nothing to mitigate the potential usage of water, the potential drain of water in tse these aquifers in that region and the effect it would be. nepa would tell us what the effect is. a full study would tell us. we are not having that done. we are working on supposition. i think that's a mistake. we cannot afford it with this bi. a full and open process. if we would have done it with the ramsey bill almost eight years ago we would be through that process many, many years ago and perhaps be talking about a differently crafted piece of legislation. we aren't doing that. the -- and the last thing is

there's something sacred and spiritual about this as well. native people are not just complaining because they want to complain. they are legitimately saying that we need to have consultations. there should be full studies and factored into the decisionmaking must be the historical and cultural and sacred and religious areas that we need protected and ensured it will be protected. those discussions have not occurred. h.r. -- it's a land giveaway, and the gentleman from new mexico said why our economy is in the bad place, well, this legislation tells you why. it's a sweetheart deal for a multicultural corporation, foreign owned. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. grijalva: i will after i'm done with my sumation if i am time, sir. this is jobs for -- it's a

touchy term, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the reality is we attempt to as a pioneer -- they've done it in australia, they have done it other parts of the world. there is no reason to believe that that same pattern is not going to be applied to the mine that they own in the resolution. the sucking sound we will be hearing is the loss of water levels in that area and the effect it will have. and it uses unusual appraisal procedures which will not guarantee that the company is going to pay any fair price for the billions of dollars of copper they stand to receive from the american people. and like i said earlier, something has to be sacred. h.r. 1904 takes away many sites that are sacred to may tif people. we've ceived plea from indian country over and over and over again and we should deal with those issues before the land exchange, not if this legislation has it after.

and add insult to injury, we kept talking about jobs. there is an agenda before this congress to begin to immediately create jobs for the american people. that is stalled, and from what i hear from leadership, permanently derailed. so as american people look for real employment and rl opportunity, we present a false hope in this legislaon, something that hasn't been vetted, and i urge opposition to the legislation. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington has two nutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: two. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman, i am -- i just want to make two points in concluding debate before we go into the amendment process and the reference was made to nepa and i responded to that a bitterlyier where i simply said that there is a division of powers, and we are making an action with passage of this

legislation signed into law by the president, we have said that there will be a land exchange. that's the policy of the country. now, anything that happens on that land after the exchange has hpened is subject to nepa review. i have absolutely no problem with that and nothing in this bill changes that process. and the second i'd want to make is on the issue of creation of jobs. honestly, when you hear debate on the floor on this issue, that's problem emblan attic of the debate going on in this congress since day one. apparently the other side thinks that the only way you can create jobs is raising taxes and expandi the public sector. we believe that the best way to create jobs and grow our economy are based on the principles that have gotten the united states from where we were when the republic was created until now by relying on the private sector. this is a private sector investme on lands that create a tremendous amount of wealth. this is a job creator, and i

think that this bill deserves on two bills. one is with the withholding. did the second changes the income eligibility requirements for certain health care programs. we will have live coverage here on c-span. >> coming up next, the house hearing investigates investigations in attempt to kill a saudi diplomat. president obama announced a plan to ease a repayment of student loans. later, a house debate over federal land swaps to make way

for a compromise in -- copper minr ie in arizona. >> i do not want every story to be 1800 words. >> she became the first woman to become the executive editor. if she believes the times is more irreplaceable. >> there is a certain lack of discipline. a point is repeated too many times. there are too many points being made. she will discuss her career and your but on c-span. -- her career here on c-span. >> this is a keynesian strategy. this has been the idea.

their reality has been very different. >> they are thinking primarily of the eastern seaboard. jefferson is dreaming of his empire of liberty. it to go all the way to mississippi and missouri. >> i have covered the military and the cia. as a reporter, i had seen things for up a rally that i was not sure what they were. people disappeared into worlds that did not exist before. they have their titles for agencies i had never heard of. after 10 years of working in that realm, i asked, what is going on? >> the call it the "ripple effect, ."

every time we use water, it sets off a series of consequences that we are unaware of a. >> what every event and the coverage last week and from the texas book festival at the c- span video library. watch what you want when you want it. >> the justice department indicted two officials on planning the assassination of the leader. we look into this. members are testimony from the one that was developing this in the bush demonstration. also testifying was 10. he is commander during the 1983 that killed to under 41 u.s. marines. this is two hours and 45 minutes.

>> we're meeting to hear testimony. the government is a threat to the international community. recent reports indicate that the government is a threat to the home and security. by attempting to assassinate the saudi ambassador using hotels operating on our doorstep. enough is enough. we have attempted to use economic sanctions. they have not worked. our message should be simple. continue threatening the national security and there will be punitive response. this examines the threat from the government.

iranian leaders seem very determined to build a nuclear weapon. additionally, iran has been successfully and enriched uranium. their growing arsenal of ballistic missiles enhances the power of their production and there are rumors that they will use these missiles to develop a warhead. iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. since its inception in 1979, the islamic state has used terror as an integral part in its foreign and military policies. it provides funding, weapons, training, and a sanctuary to numerous terrorist troops, most notably those operating in iraq, afghanistan, lebanon, and other middle eastern countries. iranian terrorists have killed over 1000 people in terrorist attacks, including the 1982

suicide bombing, killing 299 people. that was in beirut. most recently, files -- charges have been filed against a naturalized u.s. citizen who will an iranian passport, and another who was identified as a member of the quds force, a special unit of the iran revolutionary guard. the charges state that mr. monsoor, attempted to hire the mexican drug cartel to assassinate the saudi ambassador in washington d.c. we should be concerned. the spots indicate a dangerous amount -- of this plot indicates a dangerous escalation. remember, world war i started because of the assassination of an iranian diplomat -- of a foreign diplomat.

iran is focus on recruiting venezuelan youths of arab origin. some are brought for training. sources claim that hezbollah is involved in the operation. in addition, intelligence officials have been transporting -- obviously, iran is a rogue state, which continues to acquire nuclear weapons, build and long-range missiles in support of terrorism. actions taken by the administration are not working. would not enforce sanctions against iran's central bank. if it turns out that this iranian plot on u.s. soil was tension at the highest levels of the iranian government, then i believe force should not be taken off the table. and we have a distinguished panel here with us today. i looked forward to seeing what actions the obama administration will take to demonstrate that the iranian government actions are simply unacceptable. with that, i now recognize the

ranking member, the gentle lady from california, ms. jackie spear. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. the first, i would like to congratulate the people of libya for ending the reign of muammar gaddafi last week.

it is now time for the people to begin a long process of rebuilding their country and to regain the villa's standing in the international community. i would also like to congratulate president obama for helping to support the coalition in deposing this dictator all without placing in the of our forces in harm's way. it stands as yet another example that our increasingly interconnected world, berber regimes cannot -- berchtold regimes cannot suppress the desire for freedom and democracy. habré like to thank you for being here today to discuss the iranian threat -- i would like to thank you for being here today to discuss the iranian threat.

though this plot has refocus the debate on threats to our security from iran, we all know that iran has been a primary security concern for america for a long time. earlier this year we had a subcommittee hearing on hezbollah. this is a group responsible for devastating attacks against the u.s., including a deadly bombing of a u.s. embassy and marine corps barracks in lebanon. iraq continues to -- iran continues to supply support for terrorism in iraq and afghanistan. the recently foiled plot, which

was allegedly authorized, funded, and planned by members of the could force the -- of the quds force opens up issues. if this plot was authorized by members of the iranian government, what does it mean for the overall threat we face from iran? given that the target was not american, how does this change our estimation of the iranian capability and intent to strike the air -- the u.s.? and does the attempt to partner with in the met -- with a drug cartel member, indicate an allusion with iran and the drug cartel organization? we still need to learn of a troubling facts in this case. but one thing is for sure, we'd sober foreign policy discussion, not the inflammatory sound bites that have been characteristic of the debate to -- until now. a heated debate brings back memories of the darkest days of the cold war.

before this plot was uncovered, the u.s. and iran had been considering a hot line between the two countries in of sackur heads will prevail in the event of a crisis. -- in the hopes that cooler heads will prevail in the event of a crisis. i cannot help but think that such a hot line could have helped before now. america needs to send a message that iran's leaders must be held for their actions, but wind must not take any reckless actions, which may lead to opening up another front in the war on terror, which the american people do not want and cannot afford. we need the proper balance in making iran accountable. as we showed in libya, the best approach is to build a coalition